"__NOEDITSECTION__ __NOTOC__
 < Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 >


 United Wrestling Association 

Thank you very much for your time & effort cleaning up United Wrestling Association. It looks wonderful now. I appreciate that very much.  

 Triple Crown and Grand Slam Champions 

I am not and was never looking to start trouble, all I am trying to do is expand a definition based on fact and references.

The Triple Crown and the Grand Slam are what we have been going back and forth on.

My contention is that The Intercontinental and United States Championships are equal and thus are interchangeable when when deciding a Crown/Slam.

You say no because WWE never explicitly came out and said so.

On 8-4-06, JBL said he was a Slam winner.  A WWE wrestler on WWE TV said he accomplished a WWE sanctioned feat.

It was said that no outside source has verified this, but no one in WWE has disputed JBL's claim either.

Also it must be pointed out that PWI has always considered the two championships as equal.

When PWI used to do their rankings for WWF and WCW, the I-C and U.S. Titles were always listed as automatic number one contenders for their respective World Champions.  The same holds true today when they do the rankings for Raw (I-C) and Smackdown (U.S.).

PWI is considered the main source for what is considered a ""World Title"" and their word is law here on Wikipedia.

They also have always maintained that the I-C and U.S. Championships are of equal value and of equal standing.

As I have said before, I am not trying to vandalize or add nonsense to Wikipedia, only enhance it with an updated definition based on consensus and fact, based on logic and references.

JBL, PWI, and many other wiki users have backed up this definition. (Look at the Triple Crown Champion Discussion page).

All I ask is my contribution be allowed to stand as I respectfully feel that I am in the right on this one.

Thank you for your time.

Vlh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs) .

 Re Sprotected3 

The merge idea sounds good. Thanks (Reply) 
It works fine. Thanks again. '''(Reply)''' 

 per cscwem 

Hi, Moe. I'm particularly sensitive about people asking me about the reasons for my votes. So I won't be offended if you are, or decline to answer (heck, I walk that line frequently). It is my hope, though, that our past history will put aside the notion that I'm grilling you over the coals. I found your vote opposing CSCWEM today. I was wondering if you could explain to me what I've missed. I personally voted against him for administratorship, on the basis that he simply did not need it to continue the work he was doing. He still doesn't. And frankly, I oppose most RFAs. In this case, though, I've interacted with him a lot and find him to be (I hate to use the term) a real ""standup kind of guy."" If you'd deign to explain to me, I'd be most grateful. Thanks, Alex. ... aa:talk 
You know, I mostly agree with everything you've said. I think the one perception difference we have is that I see him interacting with a lot of users in the process of all those revert edits. But, your point is valid. Thanks for letting me know. ... aa:talk 22:19