User talk:JDC808: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 625: Line 625:


{{Ping|JDC808}} Sure thing. Sorry about my previous comment, I know you might think that I come across as a jerk or something like that and I would like to apologize. Let's start anew on a clean slate. [[User:Zerobrains94|Zerobrains94]] ([[User talk:Zerobrains94|talk]]) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Ping|JDC808}} Sure thing. Sorry about my previous comment, I know you might think that I come across as a jerk or something like that and I would like to apologize. Let's start anew on a clean slate. [[User:Zerobrains94|Zerobrains94]] ([[User talk:Zerobrains94|talk]]) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
:Agreed, and same on my end. That's the one thing annoying about text: you can't always predict how it sounds. P.S. When you post on my talk page, you don't have to use the ping feature (just posting on my talk page automatically notifies me). The ping is only needed when we're not on my talk page (like if we were on yours or on some article's talk page). --[[User:JDC808|<span style="color: green;">JDC808</span>]] [[User talk:JDC808|<span style="color: black;">♫</span>]] 16:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:49, 7 March 2019

Happy Festivus

Happy Festivus!
Here's wishing you a happy Festivus!
May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength,
may your list of Grievances be short,
and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles.
—Torchiest talkedits 13:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lol you too --JDC808 ♫ 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday wishes!
JDC808, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013!

I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :)


  • Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

Thanks, you too. --JDC808 ♫ 10:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thank you for supporting Batman: Arkham City and helping make it a Featured Article! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Great job! Now God of War (video game) needs to be promoted. --JDC808 ♫ 07:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Main Page appearance: God of War: Chains of Olympus

This is a note to let the main editors of God of War: Chains of Olympus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 19, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 19, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

God of War: Chains of Olympus is a 2008 third-person action-adventure video game. It is the fourth installment in the God of War series and a prequel to the original God of War. It is loosely based on Greek mythology and has vengeance as its central motif. The player controls Kratos, a Spartan warrior who serves the Olympian Gods. Kratos is guided by the goddess Athena, who instructs him to find the Sun God Helios, as the Dream God Morpheus has caused many of the gods to slumber in Helios' absence. The gameplay is very similar to that of its predecessors, with a focus on combo-based combat. The game features quick time events that require the player to complete game controller actions in a timed sequence to defeat stronger enemies and bosses. The player can use magical attacks, and the game also features puzzles and platforming elements. Debuting at No. 5 on the North American charts, Chains of Olympus achieved the highest composite score for a PlayStation Portable title from Metacritic and GameRankings. It has won several awards, including "Best PSP Action Game", "Best Graphics Technology", and "Best Use of Sound". By June 2012, the game had sold 3.2 million copies worldwide. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, well done. I personally think God of War II should also be featured eventually, as I believe it is the definitive GOW game and has that broad appeal. Perhaps in a year or so? Regards Bluerim (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it will be, eventually lol by the way, if you don't see any other issues with it in its current state, you could nominate it if you want to, or we could conominate, whichever. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

PlayStation
Thank you for quality articles for project Video games, such as God of War: Chains of Olympus and many more of the series, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition. Didn't know about this. P.S. Made a spelling correction in the title. --JDC808 ♫ 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, you were the 460th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three years ago, you were recipient no. 460 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for today's God of War II! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for today's God of War: Ghost of Sparta! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congrats, it's been a long couple of months I know, since January i think hasn't it? Happy birthday. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • November...but yeah, thank you. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you.

The Resilient Barnstar
For your persistence in getting God of War to FA status. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 02:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday

Happy birthday! And congrats on the FA czar · · 03:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --JDC808 ♫ 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG newsletter interview

Hey, are you interested in answering some questions for an interview for the VG newsletter? If so, we'd need to get it done ASAP, hopefully by the end of the weekend. Let me know, and I'll put them together and post a link for you. —Torchiest talkedits 13:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --JDC808 ♫ 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Go here, answer all the questions, and leave a note on my talk page when you've completed them. I'll go over it and copy edit for grammar etc, then leave one last note for you to approve it, and it should be out with the newsletter this Wednesday! Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 00:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a few minor changes to it. Let me know if you're okay with it, and we'll call it good. Thanks again! —Torchiest talkedits 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the interview!

Your work around WP:VG is always very appreciated! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

For taking the time to comment on Batman: Arkham Asylum's FAC process. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yum, and you're welcome. --JDC808 ♫ 16:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, October 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 05:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Games Barnstar

The Video game Barnstar

For their effort in promoting the article God of War: Ghost of Sparta to FA status, I hereby present JDC808 the Video Games Barnstar. Great effort! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Quarter 4, 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 3 — 3nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
This barnstar is awarded for working toward building consensus and improving articles through productive discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God of War II for TFA

Hi JDC. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the God of War II article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 13, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 13, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks! --JDC808 ♫ 05:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2017

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 Template:Vgy, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 14:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC))

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2017

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2017, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NXT TakeOver: WarGames background removal

I noticed that you removed the unnecessary background info on NXT TakeOver: WarGames; thank you for this. This info is totally unneeded on every TakeOver page. Should this also be removed on every prior TakeOver page? If so, I could do it in my free time. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NotTheFakeJTP: I would say yes, and just keep the little bit of background that I kept there at WarGames, which could possibly also be trimmed down some. --JDC808 ♫ 21:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement

Thanks for correcting that "however" issue in the Royal Rumble 2018 page. I did notice the edit, but due to unforeseen circumstances I couldn't resolve the edit.

Much appreciated! Zerobrains94 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Zerobrains94 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review request

A fellow user and me nominated made an FA review here. Things are going okay, but the review is lacking a source review. Since you skilled in FAs, I've been wondering if you could do it. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably can't get to it tonight, but possibly in the next couple of days. --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Weeks tend to be busy.Tintor2 (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tintor2, I wanted to apologize for not getting to this, but I see someone else got the source review done, which is great. This honestly slipped my mind. I'm going to look over it anyways (the article in general) and provide any comments I may have. --JDC808 ♫ 04:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Since I was afraid the FAC was inactive I started asking everybody so don't worry. Still, could you provide one or two comments you find? I think it needs more supports for a pass. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't realize you already did that. Thanks for the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it appeared the article would become a FA, a fellow user made a big oppose, crticizing the reception section. Flowerpiep and me redid the entire reception section of Sasuke Uchiha but it still has not been approved its prose. Could you give it a look if you have the time? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I saw his review and I honestly disagree with how he approached this review. I'll have a look. --JDC808 ♫ 23:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo

He got left over from when I restored the 2013 version. Honestly, I'm surprised I wasn't sloppier. Thanks for catching that.LM2000 (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That makes sense now. No problem. --JDC808 ♫ 07:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasuke Uchiha

Thanks for your comments in the FAC. I recently trimmed the section "In Naruto" as well as make it more out of universe by starting with the character's introduction. Could you give it a check to see if the prose is all right? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka

Her WWE.com profile clearly still lists her as Raw http://www.wwe.com/superstars/asuka - GalatzTalk 21:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context

You want to talk about context as if you are always right but yet you have no idea what my username is. I am Zerobrains94, not Zerobrains. Look at your own mistakes before you criticize other editors Zerobrains94 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Zerobrains94 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: I never said I was always right nor do I think I am always right. If you noticed, I didn't actually make any changes to your wording in regards to your issue with "How can one "hit" a forearm?" The thing is, you point out these silly things when there was actually nothing wrong with it because you misunderstood what it said. It's just like in the past how you did not understand the usage of the word "saw" and you said that events cannot "see". And in regards to your username, I was using shorthand (as in, using a shorter version of your username as there's not a lot of space in the edit summary box). If you have an issue that I did not include "94", then I apologize, but I could care less if you typed my username as JDC. --JDC808 ♫ 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to acknowledge

I also noticed that I wrote a message on your talk page a couple of weeks ago yet you failed to acknowledge it, however, you can acknowledge other editors who write on your talk page. It's no problem. I have no problem with you but it seems you have a problem with me. Just remember I am human and I am not indifferent to other editors.

Thank you. Zerobrains94 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Zerobrains94 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: Are you talking about this? I'm not really sure what your issue is here. I saw that you wrote that, but didn't feel it needed a response as the matter was dealt with. You didn't ask any kind of question, or write a message that needed a response, so what kind of reply were you expecting? --JDC808 ♫ 23:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You don't have to put a double signature. --JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Apology accepted. Zerobrains94 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond...

to this and another thread. Str1977 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More interwining. First issue is settled. Still your input is welcome in case Carnax reverts again. Str1977 (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it

@JDC808:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WWE_Greatest_Royal_Rumble#WWE_Network_event Can you tell why there no Women matches in the Greatest Royal Rumble 2018 (Special PPV Event) i try use talk over there..not really get answer 01:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea. I don't know much about the event other than the 50-man royal rumble. --JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring

Hello JDC8o8. A fellow user and me have been working on this article to bring to GA. While the reviewer has found it passable, he still said that he will wait until the prose is a bit copyedited. If you had time could you give it a touch? It's a small article. By the way, good luck with the 2018 God of War game. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I get some time here in the next few days, I'll have a look. --JDC808 ♫ 00:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NXT Championship

Hi, regarding the NXT championship, We can't really allow organisations to reference themselves in regards to claims that it is a "World" championship. As a title for a developmental program, this seems unlikely. If you wish to reference this as a world championship, you need to find independent (not the company's own website and reliable sources that confirm this. Thanks.Egaoblai (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an odd situation, but many editors have agreed with this classification. Also, the company owns the championship, so they can classify it how they want. How is an independent source going to be able to classify that? An independent source would only be able to give their opinion to this particular situation. Independent sources do not dictate what is and isn't a championship. The company who owns it does. --JDC808 ♫ 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case would you agree that any wrestling company, no matter how small can claim their title is a world title and this could be added to Wikipedia?Egaoblai (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any company can claim their top championship to be a world championship, however, whether we add it to Wikipedia depends on whether or not the promotion is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, and thus, notable enough to have articles for their championship(s). --JDC808 ♫ 00:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Short Term Notice Blue Lock on WM34 Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_34#Extended_confirmed_protection_request_on_30_March_2018\ @JDC808: I think we should have a short term Blue lock for Wrestlemania 34 i explained in the Talkpage over there. I been noticing unnecessary random unconfirmed changes (or add backs) and suspecting few are using multiple accounts to do so. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough vandalism to request a higher level protection. Also, because you posted on my talk page, you do not have to "ping" me (Wikipedia by default notifies me because it's my talk page). The "ping" is only needed if you're needing to notify me on another talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 17:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH

I suggest you give WP:SYNTH a good read, as you violate it constantly. Besides for you obviously WP:OR with the "I don't think" in your edit summary, this edit [1] is not supported by the sources given. By putting the title defended source together with the current champion, you are violating that policy by putting two pieces together to draw your own conclusion. Same thing with your edit here [2]. It doesn't say there that they might still not be champion, you are drawing your own conclusions and applying it, once again WP:SYNTH. - GalatzTalk 22:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you in that same boat of violating it though as you are drawing conclusions as well? Yours could be taken that they may lose the titles, although there are no scheduled televised title defenses between now and then. In regards to the Backlash edit, they are scheduled to defend their titles before that event. I changed the wording so it is not "may not still be champion" and just acknowledged that they have a title defense before the event. --JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not combining two sources to draw a conclusion, no. I am going by the one source that says the title would be defended, and adding nothing else. Saying they will both be in that match is relevant because it adds to the storyline built. Not knowing who or if Mahal will defend the title against, there is no way of knowing if its related. - GalatzTalk 23:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE The Miz custom.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WWE The Miz custom.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic statements

MOS:VG (Now an official MOS guideline, previously the VG Article Guideline) was updated in recent years to follow the format Wikibenboy94 has been trying to maintain on God of War (2018 video game). I'll try to find the discussions if you would like, but the MOS supercedes those older discussions. The basic gist is that any unsourced statement of "received (some degree) acclaim" is essentially WP:OR, while a direct attributed and sourced statement of Metacritic's categorization is not. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I would need to see those discussions, because it wasn't that long ago where I had this issue on getting the previous God of War games promoted for FA. --JDC808 ♫ 03:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to search for them as a favor, but like I said, this is official MOS guideline that's been reviewed and gone through an RFC now. Please stop reverting and leave it as the IP originally put it (Based on MOS:VG and the CURRENT consensus). Things change sometimes after 3 years. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general trend towards this in the MOS, which was WP:VG/GL at the time, began with this discussion in Sept 2016 about "mixed to positive", its meaning, and the fairly constant POV edit warring on new games by fans and detractors, who were constantly editing from "positive" to "mixed to positive" to "negative", etc, in unsourced lead Reception sentences. That led to this edit, which added a POV section to the guideline and the first mention of "Use according to Metacritic and source it". Shortly after, it was reformatted in Januar 2017 by czar, which changed it to a list format. At this stage, it was still used in terms of "when in dispute." In August 2017, Czar reworked it again, based on this essay. This is when the guideline began suggesting quoting and sourcing Metacritic directly, as any other summation is the editor's personal WP:original research. This reformat also encapsulated other recent WPVG discussion such as the general removal of GR in most cases, the existing "mixed to positive" point, etc. This discussion in the same month essentially agreed with those changes by czar. This portion of the guideline (use Metacritic's summation) basically remained untouched until the guideline's RFC to become official MOS, and it remains in the MOS now. Generally, the only opposition to becoming an official MOS guideline were WPVG editors concerned about losing control over the guideline. The MOS RFC is here. Essentially this has been in the guideline, in one form or another, for nearly two years without being challenged. -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if you feel this isn't a clear enough display of consensus for this format, you should leave the article as is for now, and use the MOS's talk page to discuss the issue. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I don't like to "template the regulars" but I don't know how else to put it it here. Please discuss. Poll WP:VG or other groups neutrally if you need to. But stop the continued reverts. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it has now come to this on both our pages, I'd like to invite you to voice all your concerns on the relevant talk page (instead of blanket reverting) so we and other editors can sort this out. I also want to call on you to drop your "this is why I told you to reread your postings" shtick in edit summaries. I do make errors but IMHO not more so than others. Since you do not call out others in edit summaries, even frequently revert back to errors by others (or even your own), your wording in that regard is uncalled for and at least bordering on personal attacks: neither of us belong in edit summaries. Str1977 (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I keep saying that is because of the observed editing habits (I also mentioned it in another semi-recent discussion, but it was seemingly ignored, which is why I said it in the edit summary). In the past, I've seen you make an edit that had obvious mistakes, but there was no attempt afterwards to try and fix it (i.e., you didn't reread even after you hit the submit button). You recently made attempts to fix the mistakes, but that has not always been the case. It's not a personal attack. It's advice to try and have less mistakes. And I have called others out on things. Zerobrains94 immediately comes to mind as for the longest time, he did not know how to properly use commas when using the word "however". I mentioned it several times in edit summaries, and eventually had to directly post to his talk page as he just seemed to ignore the edit summaries (this was a few months ago, which is why it may appear that I have not called others out on something). --JDC808 ♫ 07:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

I am pleased to award this WikiProject Video games Triple Crown to JDC808 for their outstanding contributions to the project. Keep up the good work. Freikorp (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was quick. --JDC808 ♫ 00:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:God of War PS4.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:God of War PS4.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 20:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MITB

Your claims are not supported by the sources. Stop adding it! - 14:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you be more specific, because yes, they are supported. --JDC808 ♫ 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No where does it say there should be 4 matches. You drew a conclusion and then shot it down, thats WP:OR. No where does it state Universal is included, NO WHERE. The closest thing is Sami saying its his rode to it, but that means nothing. Kurt Angle said twice that Asuka was going for the Raw title, but she didn't, it needs an official announcement. No where does it say which championship is included for women. Quote the exact thing you are referring to specifically saying it, as is required by WP:PRIMARY for something from WWE.com. - GalatzTalk 14:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When it was announced that this year would be dual-branded, there was speculation that there would be four matches. This is an explanation that there won't be and supported by the sources that says there is only two. Yes, the Universal Championship is supported in the very first source from Pro Wrestling Dot Net. It was more than just Zayn who said that too. The WWE source says "a world championship". The Universal Championship is a world championship. Same thing for the women's matches. Both women's titles are considered world championships for the women. Furthermore, Paige on SmackDown said that winner would use the contract for their brand's championship. --JDC808 ♫ 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are drawing a conclusion. It is not stated. There is a lot of options it could be, and you are coming to your own conclusion, which is not supported by the sources. Wikipedia doesnt report on speculation, so the 4 matches has no place on wikipedia. - GalatzTalk 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "drawing a conclusion" in the way you speak. It's a simple explanation as to why there is a not a ladder match for each top championship. In the past, they had a separate ladder match for the WWE and World Heavyweight titles until they were unified. Anyone who watched the product then but hasn't kept up recently could think that they'd continue that format and with the addition of the women's championships. --JDC808 ♫ 15:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your logic if they havent watched the product in years they would assume just 2 for the men since the women's never existed. Its not needed. - GalatzTalk 15:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I've changed the statement. --JDC808 ♫ 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And left in all the unsourced information. I fixed it - GalatzTalk 15:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't. Once again, YOU reverted sourced content that you fail to read. --JDC808 ♫ 15:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it says Universal is in there quote it? Where does it says specifically what titles are eligible? You do not know what their plans are and are writing what you think it is. If it was WWE Championship and Universal Championship why would they not have just flat out said that?? - GalatzTalk 15:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He said he would win MITB and then he’d be in full control of his destiny and will then take back the Universal Championship"; "He said they need to be in a position of power and the way to do that is to win MITB and the WWE Universal Championship"

"She said that whichever superstars grab the briefcases will take them back to their respective brands"

"With the contract inside, the victorious Superstar will guarantee himself a World Championship opportunity anytime and anywhere they wish in the subsequent year"

"This year’s follow-up Ladder Match promises to bring the Women’s Evolution to new heights, as Raw and SmackDown LIVE’s most daring Superstars will once again take to the rungs"; "With ladders scattered around the ring, who will conquer the opposition, climb the dangerous rungs, grab the Money in the Bank briefcase and capture the coveted contract to earn an opportunity to challenge a World Champion any time they wish in the next year"

--JDC808 ♫ 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "He said he would win MITB and then he’d be in full control of his destiny and will then take back the Universal Championship"; "He said they need to be in a position of power and the way to do that is to win MITB and the WWE Universal Championship" - This is not an official announcement. Wrestlers say things all the time that dont pan out, so this definitely does not work to support it. And even if it did, it does not mean the WWE Championship is in.
  2. "She said that whichever superstars grab the briefcases will take them back to their respective brands" - That is the briefcase, doesnt mean the title.
  3. "With the contract inside, the victorious Superstar will guarantee himself a World Championship opportunity anytime and anywhere they wish in the subsequent year" - Per WP:PRIMARY * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. That is exactly what you are doing. They do not say what World Championship, only it will be for one. You are coming to the conclusion.
  4. "This year’s follow-up Ladder Match promises to bring the Women’s Evolution to new heights, as Raw and SmackDown LIVE’s most daring Superstars will once again take to the rungs"; "With ladders scattered around the ring, who will conquer the opposition, climb the dangerous rungs, grab the Money in the Bank briefcase and capture the coveted contract to earn an opportunity to challenge a World Champion any time they wish in the next year" - Once again no mention of which or both championships only that it is one, so you are once again violating WP:PRIMARY
Now again, do you have anything that supports what you wrote since I just showed you why everything you quoted does not support it. - GalatzTalk 15:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"That is the briefcase, doesnt mean the title"; Briefcase = contract. The terms are used interchangeably but mean the same thing in WWE in regards to MITB. The briefcase/contract is for a championship match.
"A world championship". There is a world championship on Raw and a world championship on SmackDown for both men and women. That phrase literally means the contract is to be used on "a world championship" on either Raw or SmackDown. Raw's world championships are the Universal and Raw Women's titles, SmackDown's are the WWE and SmackDown Women's titles. It's not rocket science. --JDC808 ♫ 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt say either world championship. Again you are drawing the conclusion as to what it means. Contract = Briefcase is meaningless without them saying what the contract is for. You have only shown your opinion on what it means. You haven't provided a source that shows what it actually is. - GalatzTalk 16:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest you read WP:SYNTH because that is exactly what your argument is. You are saying its a World Title from this source and comparing it to information you gathered elsewhere and drawing the conclusion. It might not be rocket science, but it is against policy. - GalatzTalk 18:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking this way too literally on specific term usage. We're not in kindergarten. Things don't have to be spelled out verbatim. It's understood what is meant. You are making this way more complicated than it should be, which it shouldn't be complicated at all. --JDC808 ♫ 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Contract = Briefcase is meaningless without them saying what the contract is for." For an editor such as yourself, this is an absolute dumbfounding statement. The contract is for a world championship match. Every year, the contract is for a world championship match. Every year, this is stated. ONCE AGAIN, WWE's source says the contract (contained within the briefcase) is for "a world championship" match. Do you not know what that means? If it could only be used on the WWE Championship, for example, they would not have said a world championship. "a world championship" means there's more than one world championship. It's a fact that the Universal Championship is a world championship. It's a fact that WWE call both women's championships world championships. This is not "my opinion on what it means". --JDC808 ♫ 19:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is your opinion. How do you know they dont decide to merge the championships before then which is why they arent saying it? How do you know they dont have other plans for the Universal title so its only WWE Championship? There are other things it could mean that don't align with your assumption, so yes they do need to spell it out. If there was only one world title and they said a world title match, it would be obvious, but now it is not. And it is meaningless because if they haven't said what specifically the contract is for, so taking it to their brand is in fact a useless statement. - GalatzTalk 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Script

I've been searching for game scripts online and I found one for the first God of War game here. It might help to add more specific citations in the quotes parameter. I hope it helps. Also, I've just nominated Kazuya Mishima to GA. Could you give it a look based on your experience. Good luck editing. By the way, do you think another character from God of War could have his own article? I think Kratos' son might be the subject of a lot of reception based on reviews I have often read online. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If I get some spare time, I'll have a look at your article, and I have thought about a separate article for his son. I've actually thought about separate articles for a couple of other characters, like Zeus or maybe Athena or Ares, but I've never wrote a character article before (Kratos was already an article when I really began editing) and I haven't really looked into what all information is available to be able make an article. It's something I'd like to try though. Most definitely for the son, as there is a decent bit of information for him as well as the actor and what went into that. --JDC808 ♫ 00:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination for Kratos (mythology)

Hello! I have no idea if you would be interested in this, but I recently nominated the article Kratos (mythology) for "Good Article" status. I have never played God of War, nor do I want to, but I frequently write articles about Greek mythology. I happened to notice that the article Kratos (mythology) was receiving over a thousand views each day, even though the entire text of the article at the time was only three sentences long, making it probably the most viewed mythology-related stub on Wikipedia. I massively expanded the article with information from reliable sources, adding information about his role and characterization in Prometheus Bound as well as references and depictions in other works of ancient Greek and modern literature and art, and I have now nominated it for "Good Article" status. I noticed that you have written quite a lengthy article about the video game character and, although I know that the video game character does not really have much connection to the actual god in Greek mythology, I thought I would ask to see if you might be interested in reviewing it, or at least looking at it, since users willing to review articles for GA status are generally very difficult to come by these days.

I would also like to apologize; I accidentally originally posted this message at the talk page for L293D. I have no idea how I ended up on his or her user talk page, but I seem to gotten him or her confused with you because your usernames are both jumbles of numbers and letters. This is horribly embarrassing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. It was just a couple or so months ago that that article was just a little stub of about a paragraph long. I did not realize there was that much information about the mythological Kratos, and it surprises me that you were able to expand it as much as you have. Yeah, I'd be willing to review it for GA (might be a little bit slower of a review process because of my schedule). And no problem on the username. --JDC808 ♫ 03:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! I did have to do quite a bit of digging to find sources on Kratos and I was actually genuinely surprised by how much information I was able to find myself. I had always assumed that he was entirely minor and obscure and that I would not be able to find hardly anything about him, but the thing about Greek myths is that they have been around for so long and they have been so influential on western culture that, even for the most minor and obscure deities, there is still plenty of encyclopedic information out there to work with. It also turns out that Kratos is actually one of the best fleshed-out divine personifications in Greek mythology and the first one ever to appear with a speaking role in an extant work of Greek drama. Kratos's siblings Bia (mythology) and Zelus, by contrast, are virtually without any personality at all; Bia appears with Kratos in Prometheus Bound, but unlike Kratos who is surprisingly talkative, she does not speak. Zelus never appears in Greek literature at all that I am currently aware of, except when he is being listed alongside his siblings. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions

The established consensus is 205 Live is not its own brand. If you even look at the cruiserweight championship page on WWE.com you will see it even says its established for the Raw brand for the cruiserweight division. Please remember that professional wrestling is now under general sanctions , and should you make these edits again I will talk this to WP:ANI which may result in a topic wide ban for you. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 23:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a previous consensus, and WWE.com aside (as mentioned in edit summaries), it's pretty obvious that cruiserweights are no longer on Raw, and what you quoted is not incorrect. It was originally established for the Raw brand, then it became shared. Now, it hasn't appeared on Raw since like January. And really? You're going to threaten me with that? That's a good way to lose valuable project members I guess. Threaten them with ANI if it's not how you like it, even if the edits are valid. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the established consensus is incorrect or no longer applies then find one WP:RS that says its a brand. Seriously, can you find even one? There are been passing mentions on TV but that certainly does not make it official. The wikipedia community at large, started by someone outside of the wikiproject, voted to enact these sanctions, and established this is the proper procedure. So yes, I will. There is a process is place in wikipedia if you want to try and change the established consensus, its not you just deciding it has changed. If you call someone who thinks they know better than everyone else and will edit war to get their way, someone valuable, then I will gladly take the chance at losing them, yes. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care who enacted these sanctions. It wasn't I who decided this change for 205 Live (WWE does actually call it the Purple Brand, etc. on their website). Other editors agree, but you have also threatened them with ANI. I don't think I know better than anyone else. You bring up the edit war issue, but you've done it too. You want this project to improve, but when valid edits are made, you revert them because it's not the "established consensus" or whatever other excuse you make. --JDC808 ♫ 00:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide a WP:RS that calls it a brand, and use it as a starting point to try and gain a consensus to change it. Just because others agree it does not make it correct or a new consensus. Wikipedia goes based on the quality of the arguments. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The B-Team (professional wrestling), more people said to keep it than to delete it, but since they couldn't provide anything to back up their claims (just like you are not), it was deleted. Put together a solid case, provide links to back up your claim, with sources that qualify as a WP:RS and start a conversation. Just deciding it and making the edits is not the approach to take. You have been around long enough to know how this stuff works. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Dont see any reason to provide an explanation. Other fellow editors dont seem to have a problem with the main event sub heading of SummerSlam (2018) but you do. Zerobrains94 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: If you're going to revert, then you need to provide a valid explanation, especially when you're reverted and then you revert again (unless it's obvious that you're reverting vandalism or something very minor, which this was neither). It does not matter if other editors did not have a problem with what was written there (and you cannot definitively say that as other editors just may not have cared or just haven't actually read it yet). What I'm getting from your reverts and your post here is that you simply did not like your own writing being changed (my edits were helping to improve it). --JDC808 ♫ 18:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your own opinion. By the way, you come across to me as someone who wants to validate your own point as if you are right, and others are wrong. I am also entitled to my opinion. Dont get the wrong end of the stick and think that i am attacking you for no reasonZerobrains94 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: What does that have to do with anything in regards to these reverts? You reverted twice with no valid explanation and then you basically took credit by saying that you added info, which you did not. All you did was swap a couple things around. And you thanked me in that edit, which seemed sarcastic. Getting past all of that, the whole point here is that you need to provide actual reasoning for reverting valid edits. --JDC808 ♫ 18:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what you think, like I said you are entitled to your opinion. I was never sarcastic. Zerobrains94 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: You have literally added nothing to this. "You are entitled to your opinion." Is that your only argument here? It's not my opinion that you need to provide a valid explanation for reverts, that's Wikipedia policy. --JDC808 ♫ 18:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with a fool proves that there are two fools. I'm not even talking about Wikipedia policy. You referred to me as sarcastic so that's your perspective.Zerobrains94 (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: The point of that was that you've made that argument in two separate posts. Once again, you have added absolutely nothing to this. Of course you weren't talking about Wikipedia policy. If you were, then you would have provided valid explanations in your reverts, which is the whole point of this!!! --JDC808 ♫ 19:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that my edits had no valid explanation. Do yourself a favour and end this. Zerobrains94 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: I wanted this to end before it even started, but for some reason, you seemed to not understand that you should provide valid explanations for reverts and showed no sign that you would do so in future posts, and you instead provided useless "my/your opinion" arguments that added nothing. Do yourself a favor and provide valid explanations for future reverts (unless it's obvious vandalism). --JDC808 ♫ 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, i said that it was your opinion because you referred to me as sarcastic, it was never about a valid explanation on Wikipedia. If i change or revert something in the future then i will provide an explanation. You are starting to become a pain. Zerobrains94 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now see, was it that hard? --JDC808 ♫ 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Ghost of Sparta scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that God of War: Ghost of Sparta has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured topics/God of War franchise

Your featured topic, Wikipedia:Featured topics/God of War franchise, has become incomplete. That's because God of War (2018 video game) hasn't reached at least GA status three months after the release of the game. If it's not nominated shortly, than I will nominate the topic for delisting. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: About how long is "shortly"? There's one section on that article that needs expanded before I want to nominate it for GA. Knowing exactly how long I have will allow me to better plan so I can fit some time in to get that section expanded. --JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2-3 weeks maximum. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: Okay. That's most definitely doable. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 01:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: Just wanted to give you a heads up that the article has been nominated, just waiting for someone to review it. --JDC808 ♫ 21:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Good luck with the review. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Crown Jewel

Are you really arguing for a petty issue like this? I know what are "pairings" and "tag teams" are and I am not confused. Zerobrains94 (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zerobrains94 Then why did you say "Huh"? And I wasn't arguing. I was just pointing out something based on what you typed in your edit summary (and it was also based on previous edits you have made where you misunderstood the meaning of a word). --JDC808 ♫ 09:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of verbs in God of War (2018) Reception

Hi. Just thought I'd point out, while the Reception section for God of War (2018) is very well-written, there is a strong reliance on the use of the verb "said" (39 times I counted). I've noticed this is also the case with your input for the Reception of other God of War articles. I would strongly suggest providing a variety of other verbs e.g. "felt", "wrote", "disappointed", "liked/disliked", "found", "called", "remarked" etc. in order to make the wording a lot less monotonous. As those aforementioned articles have become FA, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: Thanks, and it was essentially the first draft at getting this reception section added (which the article lacked for quite some time). I remember back in GAN and FAC reviews for those other articles, there were some words to be avoided (so it actually was mentioned in those other ones, but basically in the reverse). I don't remember exactly which words, but that's part of the reason why "said" was used a lot here. The other reason is I didn't realize I had actually used it that many times. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of God of War (2018 video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article God of War (2018 video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JDC. I take advantage of this section opened on the subject. I think ProtoDrake himself would point it out too, I would suggest to use a post-release screenshots of gameplay. E3 2016 screenshot is probably no longer representative of the final version of the game. That's all. Good job. Lone Internaut (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JDC808. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of God of War (2018 video game)

The article God of War (2018 video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:God of War (2018 video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Wow! I didn't know how smart you are and how stupid I am. Thanks for making me realize it. Zerobrains94 (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of God of War (2018 video game)

The article God of War (2018 video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:God of War (2018 video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE Hardcore Championship.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Hardcore Championship.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE UK Championship Belt.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WWE UK Championship Belt.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:(WWE) World Tag Team Championship (2002-2010).png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:(WWE) World Tag Team Championship (2002-2010).png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE Cruiserweight Championship.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Cruiserweight Championship.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WCW Championship.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WCW Championship.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Royal Rumble (2019), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's tag team championship

This is a perfect example of why its better to have WP:SECONDARY sources. Your sources says the they said THEY will defend it on Raw, SmackDown and NXT. They didn't say that the title could not be defended on NXT UK, just that they won't be. In addition a few weeks ago HHH said on the post TakeOver Phoenix call that the brands it will be on has not yet been decided, and it might be on NXT UK. Do you know for a fact that the decision has been made? No you are drawing a conclusion, which is WP:OR. I dont understand why you are so against it saying multiple brands than naming them. You know for sure that saying it is on multiple brands is not incorrect, so why be more specific and risk it being wrong? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Actually, no, all a secondary source would do in this case is repeat what the primary source says. Triple H's statement was from a few weeks ago before the match even happened. This article is from after the inaugural championship match just a few days ago, which supersedes Triple H's statement. Saying multiple brands is not completely incorrect, however, to say multiple brands would encompass brands that the source does not, which in turn makes it incorrect. Do I know for a fact the decision has been made? Well it's WWE, so they could easily change their minds, but at this very moment, WWE themselves are saying it is only those three brands. It would be OR to assume it might include NXT UK. --JDC808 ♫ 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, it's a bit funny that your issue with the primary source was it saying that "they" said where they would be defending it, but then you add a source that does the exact same thing and you prefer it over WWE's, which is an official confirmation. --JDC808 ♫ 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you just do not understand WP:PRIMARY. That clearly is the basis for all of this. An "official confirmation" is not the preferred sourcing. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are the one with a misunderstanding of how to use primary sources. The primary source here trumps any secondary sources. --JDC808 ♫ 14:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First both sources say its defended across multiple brands, so my edit is correct under either source. Per WP:PRIMARY Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. It continues with Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Literally what you are doing is synthesizing the article to draw a conclusion that its restricted to those three. It specifically states that its better to go to a secondary source. So please explain how if PRIMARY says its better to go to a SECONDARY, how PRIMARY can ever trump SECONDARY? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. That's what the primary source here is being used for. The secondary source that you found, however, contradicts those facts presented in the primary and is also wrong in general. The secondary source states the following: "They announce that the titles will be defended EVERYWHERE". So are you telling me that they might defend it in AEW, ROH, or any other promotion? The source doesn't state "everywhere in WWE", it just says "everywhere". You see, that's what you were doing with the primary source. Although it only mentioned the three, you assumed that there was a possibility that it may also be defended on NXT UK. Then you found this secondary source that says "everywhere" to try and back your assumption (and in turn, you were the one who was actually synthesizing), but the statement itself is wrong. The primary source trumps the secondary because it's giving precise details, as opposed to a statement that's actually wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Firstly, I am using a secondary source, so you cannot apply the restrictions to the primary sources to it, so what I am doing is allowed. Second, you have stated that it is limited to three specific brands. No where does it state that it is limited to those three. It says that they will, but says nothing about what its limited to. If Brock Lesnar came out and said "I will only defend the title on a pay-per-view" and you had a WWE.com article that says Brock says he is only defending it on PPV, would you change the Universal article to say its a PPV only title? No because he is not speaking in an official capacity and its only how he will treat it. HHH speaking in an official capacity has stated it will be defended across brands, with a decision not yet made as to the limitation of them, clearly the NXT part has been decided but you cannot state definitively that the NXT UK part has been. There is zero disadvantage to stating it can be defended across brands, but you could be misleading saying its limited to those three. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"So what I am doing is allowed." So you're allowed to synthesize? Got you. No, you are completely wrong. The Brock Lesnar analogy doesn't work here because although it would be true of Brock Lesnar, it would not be true of the championship itself. Once again, Triple H's statement is from a few weeks ago BEFORE the match happened. The match has since happened (just a few days ago) and WWE has put out a statement saying where it will be defended (Triple H's statement is now void). It's not misleading when the company themselves (who makes the decisions over their own property mind you) have stated where it will be defended. Down the line, they may decide to include NXT UK, but right now, we cannot make the assumption. --JDC808 ♫ 16:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no I utilizing a secondary source as is allowed. Second, WWE did not issue a statement. Your source is a summary of what was said on their own show. If they issued this official statement I would love to see it, because you certainly are not referencing it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You utilized a secondary source to come to a conclusion that contradicts the primary source. No, that is wrong. Unless you're new to WWE (which you obviously are not), WWE generally does not put out an official press announcement/statement on the classification of their titles (i.e., the Universal Championship). It's generally on the informal side like this article, which at the moment, is what we have as an official announcement (at the very least, it's the closest thing). And your secondary source is doing the exact same thing: summarizing what was said on their show. --JDC808 ♫ 23:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But as per WP:SECONDARY I can include that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. You cannot say anything other than what was exactly said in a primary source. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"You cannot say anything other than what was exactly said in a primary source." You're not doing that though, and neither is the secondary source you provided. --JDC808 ♫ 21:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You are changing what a primary source says. I am sticking with what a secondary source says. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What??? I am absolutely not changing what the primary source says. It says the title is defended across the three brands and that's exactly what I included. Your secondary source says "everywhere" but fails to specify what is meant by "everywhere" as pointed out in an earlier post. --JDC808 ♫ 21:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your source [3] says As The Boss ‘N’ Hug Connection revealed on Raw 24 hours after capturing the titles, they will defend their championships against any challenger, current or veteran, across Raw, SmackDown LIVE and NXT. No where does it say that is WWE's official stance, just what they plan on doing. However according to you, this was "WWE has put out a statement saying where it will be defended". That is factually incorrect, they did not put out a statement, the summarized a show. You have taken information from a primary source and drew the conclusion that it will be limited to these three. Unless there is a source that states it is definitively not on NXT UK or exclusive to these three, you are drawing a conclusion from what you read, which is WP:OR. However, when I have proposed was that it say, it is defended across multiple brands, is indisputable from both sources. I don't know if it will be defended with NXT UK, and neither do you. All that is known for certain is multiple brands can wrestle for it, and therefore that is what it should state. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's WWE's official website. Sure, it can occasionally be wrong, just like any source, but to say what I'm doing is OR is ridiculous. I'm including exactly what was said in the source. Nothing more. What you're doing is far more OR, especially when stating "multiple brands" could be misconstrued to also include 205 Live (not to mention the error in the source itself by stating "everywhere"). --JDC808 ♫ 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its the official website, but that doesn't mean you can draw conclusions from what it says. Just like the Brock example above, if he came out and said he will only defend it on a PPV, and WWE's summary of the show stated that Brock said he will only defend it on PPV, you would not change the article to say it can only be defended on PPV. This is no different, you are taking one wrestlers comments and claiming it is a definitive fact. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, already pointed out how the Brock example doesn't work here, and you are actually drawing the conclusions. You think that just because the primary source did not include NXT UK, there is still a possibility of its inclusion. Despite no source actually stating an inclusion of NXT UK, for whatever reason, you have it in your mind that maybe, just maybe, it is included. You are drawing a conclusion based on your own assumptions. There's a difference between what you and I are doing: I'm not changing anything that was said from the source whereas you are. --JDC808 ♫ 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not changing anything. They said it will be defended across multiple brands, and so am I, I am just being less specific. Second you are taking a wrestler's words and taking that as a fact, just like the Brock Lesnar example. How would it be any different? Your answer above is The Brock Lesnar analogy doesn't work here because although it would be true of Brock Lesnar, it would not be true of the championship itself. You have no evidence that this is true of the championship itself, only that its true of Bayley and Sasha. Therefore its EXACTLY the same. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fastlane

LOL. I cannot learn until some one teaches me so why don't you teach me since you know it all?

By the way, I'm not taunting you. Zerobrains94 (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrains94: Not taunting me? Okay, then what are you doing? Here is something for you to learn: if I ever make a new post on your talk page, don't make a new post on my talk page, just reply under the post I made on yours and ping me like I pinged you here (it keeps the conversation in one place). --JDC808 ♫ 22:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: Sure thing. Sorry about my previous comment, I know you might think that I come across as a jerk or something like that and I would like to apologize. Let's start anew on a clean slate. Zerobrains94 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and same on my end. That's the one thing annoying about text: you can't always predict how it sounds. P.S. When you post on my talk page, you don't have to use the ping feature (just posting on my talk page automatically notifies me). The ping is only needed when we're not on my talk page (like if we were on yours or on some article's talk page). --JDC808 ♫ 16:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JDC808&oldid=886650398"