While I appreciate you trying to patrol the article, but we have not reached consensus on the issue and if you read the talk page. WP:GAMEGUIDE does not apply to this. While you are doing good faith edits, you are potentially violating the 3RR rule, just a heads up. --TrUCo931121:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, but when you are doing this, you are edit warring basically and if an admin sees the history page of the article and you have done more than 3 reverts, than you might be blocked. But please voice your opinion on the matter in the talk page. Also for your sigs, for the first one did you take the idea from me from my previous sigs?TrUCo931122:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cuz I was wondering if I could put a redirect link on your sig history on your first signature where you said user, to my user page. I wouldn't mind, and if its ok with you. Also idk if you see this on your version of fire fox, but your header with your name doesnt stretch all the way and isnt like complete. Like you can see the real wording that is suppose to be there ie. "User talk:NimiTize", do you see what I mean?TrUCo931122:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y-Well there you go, idk if you saw what I meant, like now your header is bigger and covers the original wording. I fixed it for you.TrUCo931122:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. See La Chapelle-Anthenaise now. It will take weeks before all the infoboxes are added but we are years behind with these places and really they should be half decent articles by now not red links. First phase it to actually get them up and runnign however minimal. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah your coding is fine, if the header reads fine its obvious that the header code is good. I checked it myself though, and I found nothing wrong. You're learning Wiki coding!--TrUCo931100:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Rumble (2005) and Over the Edge (1998) have been listed for Peer review. Please review this article and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Their peer reviews can be found here and here.
Ron Killings is still being reported as having signed a WWE contract. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for his name to be continually added to the WWE Roster article, and information about his return being added to his article. There is also, apparently, an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick. Recent SmackDown! Taping spoilers indicate that he debuted under the name Kwik Killings in a Dark match. No reliable source has reported this as of now, however.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
LAX has been promoted to admin status. His RfA can be seen here.
Next week's interviewees are D.M.N. and 3bulletproof16. Submit a question to ask them here. 3bulletproof16 has confirmed that he will indeed be taking part in the interview, even though he has retired.
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
I guess it varies by cable station. Usually RAW does end around 11:05, although WWE has leeway to go longer. BTW, my cable station is Time Warner (or was. I'm without cable for the moment until my dad pays the money he owes them). TJSpyke01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks for signing mine. Well, try not to make WrestleMania your priority. But, it will be cool if you do take pictures. ;) And sorry if I have been hard on you lately. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, my message seems to say that I'll add you to my page, if you work on Unforgiven. Its written backwards. I'll add you to my page, whether you did or not do something for Unforgiven. Hope that made sense. But, thanks again. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you trying to help us with Unforgiven, but could you please try to trim it down some. There is no need for that much play-by-play, just note the momentum changes. For an example, see SummerSlam (2007). --Sexy LAX10:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that since you are somewhat new to WP:PW, I would probably have to do some cleanup. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing personal. ;) --Sexy LAX21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Don't make Backlash your priority. Just do what you can. ;) Also, we might have to create Backlash, since Cimmo has decided he wants to create the article. Thoughts? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he adds something in his POV, revert it, since POV its not allowed in Wikipedia. Just sayin'. Are you going to work on the Event after your done with the Triple H and Batista feud? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was waiting when I hit the 10,000 edit and consider going into the Adminship. But, I don't know if I would make a good or bad Admin. Thanks for thinking of me, but I'll wait until the 10,000 edit. Is that cool or... -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I'm currently busy with the GA review for Unforgiven '04, but if you see No Way Out '04, you can see the difference between your edits and the articles. Hope that helps. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)03:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the only thing I'm saying that I can't make any changes, because of the GA review, but if you see No Way Out, you'll be fine. Oh, yeah if I were you notify Wikipedia about the new messages. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright you weren't to know that I have clearance from the arbitration committee to create unreferenced stubs. I wouldn't normally but here goes:
Notice to new page patrollers: If you are visiting with a criticism about lack of full information for the new French commune articles or references the answer is yes, initially they are indeed short new articles. This has been discussed and approved in an AN/I discussion. The thing is at least five smaller wikipedias have had half decent articles on these for five years and english wikipedia is lagging way behind. These have been missing too long. It is easier to establish the pages and then build the articles upon it afterwards. Have patience and in time these will develop even fully and images, infoboxes will be added etc will be available. It is now the responsibility of WikiProject French communes to develop these to the next level and add infoboxes and to translate from french to write the articles. You may not be aware of how much could actually be written for each of these if this is given time to develop. I believe I am setting up something very useful to build upon in the future. PLease show me the respect by not disturbing me while these articles are started. All the best and regards
can i have your Randy Orton photo so i can out it on my userpage and your userpage is mad and i am giving you credit because your userpage is just mad Cimmo 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Cimmo (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you can put the Randy Orton photo on my userpage. you have permission to go to my userpage and put the randy orton photo and you can add the credit. Cimmo (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been invited to join The Kliq. Before you become a part of The Kliq, you need to be voted in by the current members. Before you are voted in (or not), we'd like you to accept your nomination here. Thanks! iMatthew200816:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(x-posted)
Congrats NimiTize, you are now a member of The Kliq. Please go to The Kliq's talk page, and go to the last discussion about our coming up PPV project. D.M.N. and bulletproof will be returning to the group for one final PPV project. The only thing left, is what PPV do we work on? So please go to the talk page, and select a few PPV' you'd like to work on for this project. Voting will begin soon. iMatthew200821:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Hi what is wrong with the edit I made to the PS3 article? it correctly highlighted the fact that a lot of people are ruining their PS3 by upgrading to the latest firmware. Is this wrong? Furrycushion (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- It doesn't affect just linux, it greatly restricts programming on all non-sony designed software. So this affects homebrew games and video players such as an XBMC on the PS3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furrycushion (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- OK, so you would be happy for me to add this back if I had a source for this information? I personally think its very important because people are permanently damaging the potential of their PS3 by applying this upgrade. Furrycushion (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NiciVampireHeart has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
may I kindly ask why you have reverted my Xbox 360 edit's, as all of them were improvements that are closer to provable facts than your own original version you reverted to.
Let me explain why, and why I made the improvements.
I improved a illogical sentence, I wrote
An Xbox 360 displaying the "Red Ring of Death", a "general failure error"
which makes perfect sense, the original does not, as the red lights do not display "the console's hardware fault indicator", as the sentence in the the reverted version implies.
I corrected a chronological order,
Since these problems surfaced, design....
comes chronologically before
"In February 2008 an examination of 1040 "
as the first happened in June 2007, while the second happened in February 2008, reverting my correction is therefore factually wrong.
I corrected a less well documented number with a better documented number. The number of 171 instead of 164 is the more correct number coming from the factually most reliable source of the two. This source does not just mention a number, but even gives info to how the number is reached with a point by point sum of it's exponents. So reverting back to 164 is wrong!
I added a significant fact, that's in the original data on which the passage is based. My correction that the three year warranty is only valid for general failure errors (as shown by the three red error lights) is both significant, and is proven by the source, which I even quoted. reverting this edit removes significant and proven information.
Xbox 360 Red Lights are known as a hardware faulty."
Yours had two, ", which does not need to be included
Does not make any sense to me, please explain what does not make sense in "In February 2008 an examination of 1040.." And where did I write "Xbox 360 Red Lights are known as a hardware faulty."??? I did write no such thing, and what do you mean by
Yours had two, ", which does not need to be included
P.S. the only sense I can make of your reply that I used too many quote signs, what ever that means, but I made FIVE significant edits, and you reverted them all instead or correcting some quote signs you say were "too many"?! Sorry, but I need a better reason. Mahjongg (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You replied (on my talk site)
"In February 2008 an examination of 1040 ", dosent make sense.
My answer what doesn't make sense in this sentence?
All consoles manufactured after June 2007 have a second GPU heatsink to reduce overheating. But in February 2008 an examination of 1040 Xbox 360s by SquareTrade still found a 16.4% (one in six) failure rate.
First sentence claims that All consoles manufactured after June 2007 have a second GPU heatsink ..., which is a fact, but it's also a fact that half a year a test was done, and this was found An examination of 1040 Xbox 360s by SquareTrade still found a 16.4% (one in six) failure rate. Well, if you are suggesting the words "But in" and "still" are improper, as many of the systems tested might have been from before June 2006, then to a degree I can agree with that, but I do not see much more wrong with this order of sentences. or their syntax or logic. So I still fail to see what is syntactically or logically wrong with But in February 2008 an examination of 1040 Xbox 360s by SquareTrade still found, but let's assume its the "But in" and "still" that has you bothered. No problem, Ill remove them. Mahjongg (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you have to remove anything, just in my opinon I think it souldent be added. NimiTize 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What should not be added ? The quote? Well I have removed that. And so far as I know it's the only significant part I added. Is the quote what you meant? Mahjongg (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first three weeks I have tutoring and I might only edit here and there. But, I'll manage to edit some stuff. And, because I don't want you going through the article alone. ;) No, it just brought me back to the shows that I've attended. I was suppose to go to NWO '08, but I didn't. Is this your first show? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You kept accusing User:Cimmo about violating WP:OWN, when in reality he commited no such violation. No user owns any design here on Wikipedia, and can be endlessly copied and mimicked without any violation of any guideline, because [b]everything[/b] on Wikipedia is Wikipedia's and not the user's. I understand that it is more cordial to ask the user for permission and not simply just take it, but by doing so, he doesn't violate any guideline, so please don't incorrectly tell him otherwise. Cheers, AlexT/CGuest Book01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote this:
"Please stop copying parts of other user's userpage without permission, see WP:OWN for more details. NimiTize 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"
However, that sentence contradicts itself, because WP:OWN statesthat anyone can copy parts of other users' pages without permission, because those users don't own their user pages. It's clearly states in WP:OWN. The problem is that the user is not familiar with it, and you were incorrectly defining the guideline to him. Please understand guidelines better yourself before explaining them to newer users. Thanks, AlexT/CGuest Book01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
