User talk:Gavyn Sykes

Don't really mind, however...

Aesthetically I have never quite liked the consensus decision of using those dash feds listings for move names/listings. It's a general gripe across all professional wrestling articles, not just this one though, and would like it if someone figured out a much less convoluted way to list moves depending on federations when they were key.

To get an idea of which I mean I refer to Matt Sydal's article movelist, which is a massive clusterfuck, not helped to which that the article name is still causing debates based off "more famously known as" resulting in it not being moved to the more neutrally titled Matthew Korklan (full disclosure though, I believe the article should be moved but at this point I'm effectively ranting for some reason. Probably boredom.) –– Lid^(Talk) 05:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Tables

For sortable tables only, each item has to be linked regardless because you are never aware as to what will sort first, and thus you can't have some things linked and not linked per Help:Sortable table and WP:SORTKEY and WP:OVERLINK. For regular tables, that rule does not apply.--₮RUCӨ 01:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FLs should generally have sortable tables, like the recently promoted List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions list has.--₮RUCӨ 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that one is already an FL.--₮RUCӨ 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no one has taken the liberty in doing so.--₮RUCӨ 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the links Truco provided that state we should overlink tables. It also has not effect on tables, take a look at List of WWE United States Champions and you will see that having some linked and others not linked has not effect on the table. All the overlinking does is make the article even larger in size and has no benefit. TJ Spyke 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix your links ([[Anaheim, CA]] for example, should be [[Anaheim, California|Anaheim, CA]]) in the title articles. TJ Spyke 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

What do you think about User:JayExperience? He is going around creating a lot of title templates. The only concern I have is that it will just be a problem for wrestlers like Ric Flair or Triple H, people who have won lots of different titles. CM Punk alone has 4 now (WHC, ECW, ROH World, WWE IC). TJ Spyke 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Nothing worth getting into. I just grew tired of kids starting drama whenever they were disagreed with. iMatthew // talk // 10:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

I thought I already told you this, but I guess not. Welcome back!!, it is nice to have another good editor around! I saw you edit Lockdown (2008). What do you think? I finally got it to FA. But anyway, good to have you back.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is just a good thing you are back, no matter how active you are. Yeah, now I have many more new goals. Been working on alot of TNA PPV articles. Victory Road (2004), Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), Slammiversary (2008), and Sacrifice (2008) are all PPV GAs. At the moment Turning Point (2004), Final Resolution (2005), and Against All Odds (2005) are all at GAN. Got a bit of a bet with Nici to get a certain amount of articles to GA or FA. So there should be more in the future. Anything you plan to work on?--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, good luck with that. If there is anything you want to know about since you've been gone, then just ask.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Velvet Sky / Talia Madison

That's understandable. However, on an unrelated side note, why don't you guys in the WP:PW try to deal with that fuckwit Azihade or try to at least get an admin on his ass? His edits have thrown the flux of tons of wrestler articles (some of which are up for GA nomination if memory serves) out the window. PCE (Talk)

Matt Hardy

What was up with this edit? [1]. You are a good editor and will try to assumed good faith that it was a mistake on your part. TJ Spyke 03:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Title lists

You recently reverted an edit of mine at List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) regarding title lists when I removed multiple wikilinks in regards to WP:OVERLINK. An IP has since redone my edit. However, I recently read these Featured Lists: List of WWE Intercontinental Champions, List of WWE United States Champions, List of WCW Champions, List of ECW Champions, List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE), List of WWE European Champions, List of WWE Tag Team Champions... and so on. I come to see that all of them are in accordance with WP:OVERLINK and do not contain multiple links for each of the superstar's names. You stated the reason of the overlinking was because it was a sortable table, but all of these articles have sortable tables and still follow the guideline. I have not reverted the IP's edit, and would like to read your thoughts before doing so or you doing so. Thank you, Raaggio 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CM Punk

Mention of his ROH title was CLEARLY retained. It is simply not recognized as a WORLD title - you know this, as does any wrestling fan. Beef jerky66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Not defended WORLDwide, therefore not a WORLD title. As I correctly stated on the talk page for CM Punk article. Beef jerky66 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Evan Bourne

The difference is that while he may never have been anything more than a mid carder in any promotion, while mid carding in WWE he performs on TV for an audience of millions and while in ROH he was mid carding in front of an audience of a few hundred. Also, ROH fans are much more likely to know about his new name than WWE fans are to know about his old name. JimRDJones (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Many times more people watch ECW each week than are even aware of the existence of ROH. If he were an absolute top, top guy in TNA or even ROH and then appeared under a new name for only a couple of matches on WWE TV before getting released, there would be a good argument that he is better known under the old name. But as he was only a mid carder in those minor promotions and now has been a mid carder in WWE for quite a while, there can be no good argument for keeping the article under his old name. JimRDJones (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that’s even less reason to keep it as Matt Sydal. If a very high percentage of the ROH fans that knew him first as Sydal now know he uses a different name, then the number of people who know him only as Sydal even lower.JimRDJones (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn’t make any sense at all. There are millions of people who know him as Bourne and only Bourne after seeing him on WWE television. There will be at most a few thousand who know about his previous name. JimRDJones (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can’t honestly believe that? How could most WWE fans know what his old ring name was? What sort of exposure did he have using that name? As Sydal he wrestled in school gyms across America in front of a couple of hundred people for promotions without TV that would sell a few hundred DVDs of each show to supplement the live gate. The only time he was on television before WWE was the handful of TNA appearances while they were doing 0.1s on FSN and an MTV show that aired nine times and had almost as small an audience. With WWE he is wrestling several times per week in front of crowds typically 5-15 thousand in size, and is seen by millions every week around the world on television. JimRDJones (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying but it doesn’t make any sense to me. There are millions, at least five and probably more, who have seen him wrestle on WWE television in the past year in the US alone. Few of these are even going to know what Ring of Honor’s is let alone that he used to be in it and used a different name there. Ring of Honor’s audience when he was wrestling for them must be at most in the tens of thousands. How are the millions of people who know him through WWE going to have even heard the Matt Sydal name? JimRDJones (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You say

The people that know him as Sydal ALSO know him as Bourne

I agree that most who knew him as Sydal know he is now Bourne, but the number of people who knew him as Sydal is only in the tens of thousands.

while those that ONLY know him as Bourne don't know him as Sydal.

I again agree. The WWE fans that first knew him as Bourne are unlikely to know he used to be Sydal. This number is going to be in the millions.

Thus, more people TOTAL know him as Sydal

How? There are tens of thousands of people who know him as both names, but millions who know him only as Bourne.

JimRDJones (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

81.170.16.208

Since this user seems to think I have a vendetta against him/her (check out The Main Event Mafia. When I just altered what they added, but kept it in, they reverted it and called it vandalism. I can't change it back without violating 3RR), could you try talking some sense in to them? They seem to think it's vandalism or a vendetta to disagree with them. TJ Spyke 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But my version is superior, of course. Spyke doesn't want it to remain, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because of a previous disupte we had which he's evidently still upset about (hence the fact he's following myself). Since my version actually enhances and bolsters the article, perhaps you'll refrain from reverting it. That's unlikely though, seeing as Spyke has already tried to frame me as a Wikipedia villain despite trying to improve articles. Be a true Wikipedia great and allow the quality editors to win - not the people who think they're upholding quality by having their own agenda, editing relentlessly and "rubbing shoulders" with the mods. 81.170.16.208 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly see nothing wrong with EITHER version of the page and have no clue how either of you could consider the edits of the other to be vandalism. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WWA??

This company was real?? --DanteAgusta (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#To clear things up

Click the link please.--WillC 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I was beginning to think I pissed everyone off with my last messages, which was not what I wanted to do, just being blunt and honest in case you were wondering.--WillC 15:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:For the record...

Thanks and for the record, I think you are one of the better PW users. The thing is that the users who are the worst problem just dismiss any suggestions by me or iMatt as our attempts to slander the project and accuse us of trying to create drama (although they may have a point). Then they just continue to do what they do. I suppose I did go on a bit of a rant, but one WP:PW user (shouldn't be too hard to guess who) has recently taken to blindly removing what I add which, naturally, is a tad upsetting. With users like that around, it's no wonder that the newer users get scared away from editting. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

Thank you very much! Yea, exams went ok, not as well as I could have hoped I think, I'll know for sure when I get the results in August and not as bad as I feared. :) Oh, it's fine, I actually meant to leave you a message about it yesterday to explain, but it totally slipped my mind... Anyway, no, I just got tired of all the unsourced moves and move names being addded to a bunch of articles on my watchlist, so I decided to eradicate the problem. Not the best solution, I will admit now, I should have searched for sources, so I'd like to thank you for snapping me back to my senses. :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See, I tend to be too lazy to do that. I have to be in a certain frame of mind to search for sources, it tends to drive me slightly insane. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Links

I just looked over the template, and I guess I was wrong. It's just authors that shouldn't be linked if they have no article. I still don't think we should link to Dave Meltzer when WON is listed in a ref template, but I won't de-link it. TJ Spyke 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

Would you mind helping watch this page? IP's keep vandalizing the page by changing No Mercy and Cyber Sunday names. I have requested protection for it, but until then I need help reverting. TJ Spyke 14:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:PW

Any reason why you reverted this legitimate edit? D.M.N. (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I had totally forgotten I posted that, glad someone was attentive, it's not a problem, accidents happen. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FL

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but recently I've been doing alot of FLs. So I've learned a bit more recently. I've noticed and been told a few things that should be done which the old FLs don't do. First, the old FLs do not pass the current criteria. One thing they aren't sorted, etc. I'm planning to update them. Another thing is this: the notes section is only meant for the most important notes that effected the title's history. A ladder match did not effect the history of the title more than singles match did. Someone else being involved does not either. A ladder match does not effect the history, but a ladder match for the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Championship would, if the titles were being unified.--WillC 06:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

An EC and TLC match are not more important to the history. They aren't even important to the history under some significant happens within them.--WillC 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I know what you were referring too I can tell you why. The EC match in 2005 was a note regarding how Triple H became champion after it was vacated. The same is for when Edge won the title in a TLC. Those types of notes are important to the history. While just winning the title in a ladder match with no other significance is not.--WillC 15:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way. A film makes an estimated 50 million total. Now would you note that it actually made 49,999,999.99? Probably not, but if it was important you would. Like Film A made 49,999,999.99 while Film B, Film A's top rival, made 50,000,000.00 total. You would note it then if it was a significant thing which everyone were talking about. Get it?--WillC 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well we are all human. Not everyone will.--WillC 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bourne

It's not a problem, I'm glad I could help. :) You did an excellent job with it by the way. Ah no, I do check Slam! regularly; they tend to have some excellent interviews and stories on both current and former wrestlers that are always useful, and they don't just stick to WWE and TNA wrestlers which is always a good thing. Plus, it's a reliable source, so it's an added bonus. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE As a reliable source?

Excuse me, did you just say that WWE is a reliable source? Perhaps you should go read up what you just cited. Just how the hell is WWE a reliable source when they're NOT TELLING THE TRUTH? THEY'RE USING THE STORYLINE COVERUPS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED. Try to use your brain for once. Why don't you reply when you have a genuine reason to believe that WWE's lies are actually truth? You really think that Batista's arm was legitimately broken BY Randy Orton? That's clearly not the truth and citing WWE, who say that it is, just shows how unreliable wikipedia is. This isn't a positive genuinity attitude.

This disgusts me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminegen (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you're wrong. It's rather retarded if the article explains the real truth behind it, then cites a WWE website as a source... when the WWE website explains the kayfabe situation. Learn to get your facts straight. The article is totally contradicting at that spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminegen (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why the hell do you accept citing the truth with the storyline/kayfabe/coverup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminegen (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Suplex

Turns out it is indeed a proper noun. Changing the spelling to "Northern Lights" would probably be the better route to go. PCE (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I reverted the name a few hours ago after you brought up its status as a proper noun. PCE (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Nice to see you online. How you been?--WillC 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought to come by and tell you I've opened a editor review for myself. If you want, drop by and leave some comments on my editing. I know I'm a pain in the ass at times, so don't hold back.--WillC 10:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to say sorry if I have upset you about comments I've said regarding CM Punk. I didn't know you had been working on it, and I would rather not cause a riff between us. It would just cause for more drama around here, and I remember looking as a go to guy when I first started out around here. In fact I remember that you introduced me to WP:PW. Are we cool?--WillC 04:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just want you to know it is nothing personnel. Sometimes I'm an ass and I'll say shit at WT:PW or elsewhere that shows that, just ignore it.--WillC 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my nature. I'm actually pretty clam when I write. I just write serious I guess, idk.--WillC 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'll give it ago. PCE (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

SoCal Val

If I'm understanding your atrocious spelling, that's exactly what I was doing- removing improper italics from finishers in prose. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. If there are legitimate sources that state a fact, the fact can be posted. As I can find NUMEROUS sources saying he murdered his family, along with the fact that all legal proceedings to determine the result have been completed and determined he did it, there is not argument for hedging the statement. For example, look at these sources: . Since the fact is solidly sourced, there is not argument for it not being included. In fact, given the wide number of sources, and the lack of any to the contrary, any claim that he did not kill his family is in violation of NPOV. In the future, please place any comments on this article on the article's talk page. It would be appreciated. Thanks. CraigMonroe (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavyn, don't take me wrong, I am not calling anything you have done into question. Also, I only asked for you not to place the comment on my talk page because I rarely check it. Thus, it likely won't be read or responded to. If you are willing to live with this, post away. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right I did. Sorry, it was a mistake. I haev corrected it. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Benoit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. CraigMonroe (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

No worries :) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

reply

yea i can see it the guy was just driving me nuts i will reframe from useing rollback from now on.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Let me know

Thanks for letting me know, Gavyn, and thanks for having my back. Nici got to it, so don't worry. Also, I decided to ignore the user following this, but the user returned to reply at other posts. I'll say something, let's see if the user returns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Gavyn Sykes! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter message

It has recently been brought to the attention of WP:PW that the newsletter is being to delivered to several users who have not been actively editing for several months. As a result, their talk pages have become increasingly large, unmanageable and slow to load due to a lack of archiving.
In response, this message is being sent to all editors listed in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants to say that anyone who does not list their name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16 will be automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, and will no longer receive the newsletter or any notification of it. If you are added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, please feel free to remove your name if you desire.
If you wish to continue receiving the newsletter as normal, please add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If you simply wish to receive notification of a new issue, but not have the full newsletter delivered to your talk page, please add your name to the notification only list.
If you have any queries please contact me at my talk page or leave a message at WT:PW. Thank you for your co-operation. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Hello

I have nominated an article that you have contributed to for deletion at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fingerpoke_of_Doom_(3rd_nomination) Seeker of the Torch (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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:

• 154 Featured Articles
• 53 Featured Lists
• 7 Featured Topics
• 5 Featured Pictures

• 43 A-Class Articles
• 589 Good Articles
• 9 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: "A-class: Is It Worth It?"
• Interview: Teancum

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gavyn Sykes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)