Jump to content

Talk:Matt Taven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMatt Taven has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2020Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
July 2, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Matt Taven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Matt Taven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Talk:Matt Taven/GA1

Edit warring

[edit]

The section has no problems and deleting it it's just vandalism. First, it was in the article when passed the GA nomination and the admin didn't see any problem. WP:CRIT "Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive." The opinion is given by three different reliable sources, journalists experts in their field, so their opinion matters. It's similar with other articles talking about the reception of movies, songs, books. If any user finds positive viewpoint, it's welocome to include it, but no reason to remove negative. The only reason the IP gave to remove it it's "unfounded podcast opinión ", "It’s easy to be negative and a bad person", "Vengeful person continues to edit in bias opinion". So, there is no problem with the edition. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just wanna point that Ring of Honor has a similar problem, with IP removing negative perception about them without explaination [1] [2]. Looks like someone from ROH doesn't like criticism. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely bias and factual untrue, coming from a podcast with under 200 downloads. You edited out FACTS to put in OPINION. Gojo Bonito (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if multiple people are editing your false and negative edits, you ever think maybe you’re the problem? Gojo Bonito (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per WP:CRIT, negative reception is allowed and, since the text passed a Good Article Nomination, fit into WP:CRIT. "articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias." The article is not against Taven as wrestler, just pointed that several journalist and fans complained about his choice as ROH World Champion. It's balanced, just one line about the reception of him winning the top title of the, at the time, Nº 2 promotion in USA. Not one, but 3 different journalist from reliable sources agree with that, not just a podcast with 200 downloads (also , the number of downloads is't relevant to the subject, since it's a reliable website covering pro wrestling, not any fan with a mic). It' a man working on a media covering pro wrestling, so his opinion matters. I don't put MY opinion, I put the reception of three journalists. If you have positive reception about his title reign, you can include it.
"Factual untrue". Which part? His title victory was unpopular among fans? It's covered by a reliable source. "biased". The line summarize the reception of several RS, like many other articles. Every statement is sourced ("critical and financial flop" are Csonka words, not mine) At this point, looks like you want to delete every negative reception about Taven. Again, the content is well sources by RS, written by media covering pro wrestling, fit into WP:CRIT. It's not my fault several sources agree Taven was a bad choice. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely ignoring articles and statements made by bigger contributors and better sources. Melzer, Johnson, and Sports Illustrated all talked about how the downturn of Ring of Honor had nothing to do with Matt Taven and everything to do with the elite leaving.

You obviously don’t like the guy and are using biased sources to make your negative posts seem justified. Stick to the facts Gojo Bonito (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:CRIT allows critizism. The ROH article includes the Elite leaving and creation of AEW as part of the downfall (of course, sourced). The article doesn't say Taven is the cause ROH downfall, just that the decision was bad received by fans and his work didn't help ROH on a financial or critical level. Against, it's not an article biased against him, claiming he was guilty of ROH downfall, just the reception of his work as the World Champion of a promotion. At this point, it's more you [[3]] and trying to delete every criticism about him. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not factual true! You seem to have a hate for ring of honor and only listen to people who talk poorly about it. Why are you would want to spread this negativity and false statements to hurt peoples careers and the company’s future speaks more about the person you are then anything else. Again I will stick to the facts not opinions. I will listen to the sources that have more than 200 downloads. And I think that you need to find a little positivity in your life, I’m sure it will make you happier. Gojo Bonito (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have more arguments apart of "you are a bad, negative person"? Again. Not Factual true, which part? Fans unhappy with the decision is sourced. Not drawing, sourced. The statement doesn't hurt his career, since he still under contract with ROH. Not biased against him or taking conclussions, like "he is the cause of ROH downfall". I'm not against Taven or ROH, this information gives context about his work and the reception, just like music, movies or books. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time, I have told you that there are numerous and more credible sources that directly contradicts the biased opinions from your source which again is a podcast with under 200 downloads. And you personally seem like you want to frame someone else’s accomplishments in a negative light, which is absolutely deplorable.

Stop removing facts Gojo Bonito (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time, can you show these sources? As CRIT says, both positive and negative opinions are allowed. You can include, for example, "while some journalist points that Taven choice was bad, others agree he was the right choice". Look ar the Sting article, there is a section talking about he as a draw, with sources stating he wasn't a draw and other, stating he was a drew. I have no agenda against Taven or ROH, looks more like you don't want anything negative against this particular subject, which is not a WP:NPOV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PWTorch "fans seemed most invested in Scurll. They definitely didn’t like Taven, who got some good heat at times. / the crowd was really flat for Taven winning the title.". ASo, the fact that fans didn't like Taven winning the title is sourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Taven&oldid=1232160993"