Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 41

message: There are conflicting birth dates and years on her article. Can someone research this? I don't have outside internet access. 
Also, please check several sources as she strikes me as the kind of shrew that would shave some years off her age. --EndlessDan 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a website... Don't be such a nerd.--EndlessDan 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Missy Hyatt]] age 

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that ThinkBlue, Truco9311, and I will be starting the expansion of Survivor Series (2002). Cheers, LAX 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, good. I'll keep an eye on it and make any minor adjustments (if necessary). On a side note, can you please try and encorporate this section into the prose and remove the section as a result? D.M.N. (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning on doing that once we got started on the Event section. Cheers, LAX 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, OK. D.M.N. (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Survivor Series (2002)]] 

message: This one seems easy to me, since the parent article to all this, which obviously would be Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling, was deleted as an uncontested PROD almost six months ago, that these all need to go as well. If someone cares to created Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling again, the matter may be different, but that category almost certainly has to go (it just has the two pages, what's the use?). I'll tackle it in the morning if no one else has, I'm off for now. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TCW Heavyweight Championship]], [[TCW Tag Team Championship]], [[:Category:Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling championships]] 

message: (1 e.c.) The process has been going on for a month now. We in the middle of December had 3237 articles; now we have 3264 articles, an increase of 27 articles. Out of them, 777 articles were identified as Stubs in the middle of December. That number is now at 706 a decrease of 71, which is obviously a good thing. As a result, at the start of the Stub Sorting we had 24.06% of our articles identified as stubs. As a result of recent expansions in different departments, now only 21.63% of our articles are stubs! Good work guys! D.M.N. (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Article Update 

message: Tommorrow is the delivery date for the next issue. Last week's edition still hasn't been released. Now that The Hybrid is on a wikibreak, nobody has proofread it (as far as I'm aware). What do we do? iMatthew 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we forget about next week's newsletter and release this weeks tomorrow, transferring any data from the this week's to that one. And change the CotW, of course. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean forget about last week's newsletter? iMatthew 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean make this week's newsletter next week's. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe we could just combine the information from this week's and last weeks newletter, and send it out tomorrow. iMatthew 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I proofread the newsletter fairly regularly. I've gone through it a few times this week to make updates and check to see that the links are correct. I don't really see a point in sending out last week's newsletter now, because I would assume that all of the information has been duplicated or updated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: See title. :) D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already deleted. Cheers, LAX 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I need somebody else's opinion. Should The Pit Bulls be nominated for AfD?  iMatthew 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. They were an actual tag team on the SmackDown brand, and were actually together as a team e.g. like Rated-RKO. They don't need to be deleted. D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So were Kane and Big Show. Mshake3 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kane and The Big Show were just planted together. The Pitbulls were not (and were wrestling together for a whole lot longer). D.M.N. (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine then. What did they do that was notable of having an article? Mshake3 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For one thing, they were a full time tag team (even having one entrance theme and dressing alike). Kane and The Big Show were just two singles wrestlers put together for a short time. I think sometimes people get a little too delete happy when it comes to tag team articles (Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang comes to mind). TJ Spyke 23:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no difference between Rated-RKO and Kane and Big Show. Both were random sets of singles wrestlers thrown into tag teams that won championships. I see no reason why one should have an article and one shouldn't. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rated-RKO became a full time tag team though. They competed in almost only tag team matches, had 1 entrance theme (even though it was just a combination of their themes), even dressed alike. To be honest, I would support Kane and The Big Show getting their article back. TJ Spyke 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then why not just re-create Eugene and William Regal, or John Cena and Shawn Michaels. It is all the same concept. iMatthew 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The WWE Pit Bulls aren't that notable. Similar outfits, a team name and so on... isn't much to go by. That's on the same level as just about any other short lived tag team that was deleted from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: RobJ1981 brought up K.C. James and Idol Stevens also. It is the same concept with them. iMatthew 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa roster]] 

message: Just come across this article. I believe the only thing she actually did was manage Kenzo Suzuki for the whole of here career. Therefore wouldn't it be better if this was only a short-start section in Kenzo's article. I'm suggesting we merge this into Kenzo's article. Opinions (I doubt it will expand upon its current length)? D.M.N. (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to merge, I say just delete. Non-notable. iMatthew 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the article can be expanded, then I have no problem with keeping it. But I feel that she did not do enough to have an article. iMatthew 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. I prefer to err on the side of caution, though, and look for additional references and information to build the article. I find that "non-notable" is often used interchangably with "no references currently, but it's quite possible that some could be found". If I have a chance, I'll look into this article. I can't guarantee it, though, as the next week will be veyr busy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Appearing in WWE for over a year and then working as general manager for a well-known Japanese promotion (Hustle) seems fairly notable to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, she has also been seem in CMLL in Mexico, acting as her husband's valet when he's toured there. Stephen Day (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hiroko Suzuki]] 

message: As usual, I have no time to take care of the following myself. My real-life is taking up way too much of my Wikipedia time lately. Anyway, keep an eye out here as new User:Ajstyles_tna_roh has created a ton of new articles lately and few (if any) are notable enough to be kept, IMHO. He's been creating articles about African wrestling promotions and wrestlers, which I think we need more of, but only if there are indeed notable. None of the articles he has created establish notability, and because they are from Africa, my guess is that they probably can't. I've tagged a bunch with  on the talk page (I'm not done yet), so don't be surprised if our number of stubs increases greatly within the next week or so. Nikki311 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification 

message: There are some people right now going through the Good Articles, checking to make sure everything still looks as good as it did when it was promoted and/or still conforms to the GA criteria. Someone just listed some problems with Sable's article on her talk page. If anybody wants to help fix the problems and keep the article a GA, that would be appreciated. :) Nikki311 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: Deep Shadow and I want to nominate Torrie Wilson and Lisa Marie Varon over at WP:GAC. You know the drill. One week for all of y'all to look over them, copy edit, make suggestions, fix links, etc., and then we'll nominate them as GAs. Thanks. Nikki311 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA announcement 

message: Ok I am finally done OTE 99, I feel so proud..lol
anyway...I have put it up for peer review here in hopes that it will become a future FA/GA Thanks.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Over the Edge (1999)]] 

message: See the title. D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.C. James and Idol Stevens]] 

message: This article seems to pocess enough material to be FL if the nessesary steps are taken (prose cleanup and referencing) these are a piece of cake seeing the small ammount of prose and the fact that I know were to find the refs, however before getting my hand involved in here I was wondering if the article needs to have the wrestler's real names to pass FLC, I have never worked with a wrestling list before and there are some issues that would make it very hard to find out the name of some of them, such as the fact that there are people here that worked on foreing or indy federations before begining their career in WWC, for instance has somebody ever heard of Alofa the Samoan tank? since they are listed by their ringnames when the result of the matches are announced I figured that they might not be a requisite, but the advice of the users that have worked with the varios FLs here is certainly welcome. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Real names aren't necessary. The biggest thing holding it back right now is the lack of references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship]] 

message: I'm a little lost. Is Issue 9 or 10 supposed to go out today? According to the newsletter page, it's Issue 9. Issue 9 says January 13, though, but it appears to be the current one. I understand that two issues are being merged because nothing went out last week, but can someone clarify which one will actually be sent out? I just checked the one that looked like it was for today (Issue 9) and saw that the information was out of date. I updated the Project News, AFDs and Stub Article discussion, but I'm now thinking that I might have added that to a newsletter that will never be sent out. Can someone tell me if (Issue 9) or (Issue 10) will be going out this week? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. - If it's Issue 10, the AFDs need to be updated (they are up to date on Issue 9). GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter confusion 

message: Does anybody else think that Kevin Steen and El Generico is not notable enough to warrant an article? Seperately, each worker does, but as a team? I don't think so. Kris (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know, they are a regular tag team in ROH. I've never seen ROH though (they don't have a TV show and I refuse to pay for their DVDs/PPVs), so I don't know. TJ Spyke 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well looking at the sources and number of them, also looking at the info on the page I dont think they deserve an article, this article can't compare to the Briscoe Brothers.--TrUCo9311 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. They've worked together in several different promotions, held at least one title together, and headlined ROH's third PPV (alongside the Briscoes). Alone, clearly none of those are enough, but together? I think it's a close call. I don't think they're any less notable than, say, The Backseat Boyz or Da Hit Squad. More importantly, can the information in the tag team article be covered in the individuals' articles without being redundant or a copy? If so, then go ahead and merge/delete. If not, I think this article should stay. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Steen and El Generico 

message: It's bothered me for a while that I skipped this pay-per-view when I was expanding some of the 1994 events a while back (and yes, I still haven't gone back to do Survivor Series 1993, but that's next on the agenda). Anyhow, I expanded the article this weekend, and I'm fairly pleased with how it went. I know that a few people (myself included) have asked people to look over other articles already, but if anyone really feels like it, I'd appreciate it if they could take a quick glance at this article to see if there are any obvious problems. I'll put it up for peer review and give a week's notice when I plan to nominate it, but that won't be until a while after I nominate SummerSlam (1994) (which is currently up for Peer Review, as I plan to nominate it for a GA Review some time next week). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think there should be a picture of Jim Neidhart on the page. He didn't even appear at the PPV (I don't think his name was even mentioned). TJ Spyke 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I can see your point. I added it because of the feedback I received when King of the Ring (1994) went through its GA review last week. The reviewer wanted as many pictures as possible. As for the Neidhart picture, it's in the Aftermath section next to a mention of how Neidhart became involved in the feud between the Hart brothers. How about we wait for a couple more opinions on this and remove it for now if that's the consensus? I am planning to nominate the article for a GA review soon, though, and I would add the picture back in if the reviewer thought the lack of pictures in the Aftermath section was a problem. If it's not mentioned during the review, it can stay out. Sound fair? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, I guess. TJ Spyke 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WrestleMania X]] 

message: Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article has been created time and time again after it was originally deleted (see here). Cheers, LAX 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently an active deletion review on this at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_14#Talia_MadisonLessThanClippers (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted - everything after the initial deletion is just sheeps going "Oh it was deleted once, can't possibly be notable" and deleting it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta agree here - there seems enough on the page now to at least assert some notability. Keep trying and you'll eventually beat the sheeps. AdaManiac 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If somebody really wanted to create an article on her they could always do so in their userspace, try and source it, then submit the page as evidence to justify undeletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ...and listed for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Sky. --Stormie (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come a Talia Madison page can't be created? 

message: I'm working on the "Background" section for WrestleMania 23 and am coming across a problem that the section maybe seen as too long. Therefore, I think we should move the whole Background section to WrestleMania 23 build-up (can anyone think of an alternative??) and just have the main 3-4 feuds outlined on the main WrestleMania 23 page. In my view its beginning to get a tad too long. Opinions? (I would of posted this on the WrestleMania 23 talkapge, but I'd rather have a wider consensus from the project.) D.M.N. (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, that or it needs to be condensed. I wrote out the entire background section, but I couldn't be sure how much was too much and what I could eliminate. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against this; I think you should just trim the background section, and not mention all of it. Basically, like what I did for NYR07, where I outlined and summarized every single feud without cluttering up the article. Feedback ☎ 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree with Feedback. There is some stuff on there that really isn't notable. I'm all for the trim. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the WrestleMnaia 23 article, and I feel that the feuds should be able to go in-depth. Maybe after I've finished the expansion I'll do a little bit of trimming, but that won't be for at least a month. D.M.N. (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going in-depth is one thing but listing every single match that happened each week before the event is another. The amount of content in there that isn't event relevant to the feuds is ridiculous. -- bulletproof 3:16 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If this were a dedicated wrestling wiki it would be fine, but for Wikipedia a "WrestleMania build up" article is very unnecessary.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the idea at the time was that free images were better than fair use. However, I, and probably you, feel that a more relevent fair use image is better than a generic free use image. Let's just go to WWE.com and get images from there when free candid photography isn't available (and many times it isn't). Mshake3 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this, but this isn't the issue. The issue is that the article is full of images which aren't needed. The article has 2-3 images which are useful (and it can get to FA with just that). So I think all the imagecrusft should be deleted. Feedback ☎ 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WrestleMania 23]] - Background Section - Split? 

message: Are all the pictures in WrestleMania 23 really needed? Pictures of Stone Cold, Bobby Lashley and John Cena which aren't from the event are there. I think that the reader does not need to see the face of these wrestlers while reading the article, because if they don't know who the wrestler is, the wikilink is right there. And each of Stone Cold, Lashley and Cena's articles have enough pictures to satisfy the reader. The pictures of The Undertaker and the world championship and Kennedy winning the MitB are useful, and depict two big moments in the event, while the others are just image cruft. 
On a side note, I think you should get a picture of McMahon being shaved, the interaction between Trump and McMahon, or of his head shaved, because this was like "the biggest moment" of the night and a very notable moment in WWE history which will be remembered forever. Feedback ☎ 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea at the time was that free images were better than fair use. However, I, and probably you, feel that a more relevent fair use image is better than a generic free use image. Let's just go to WWE.com and get images from there when free candid photography isn't available (and many times it isn't). Mshake3 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this, but this isn't the issue. The issue is that the article is full of images which aren't needed. The article has 2-3 images which are useful (and it can get to FA with just that). So I think all the imagecrusft should be deleted. Feedback ☎ 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The pictures

message: hi! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Florida16, and I hope you all will accept me into this community. Please do not block me as some puppet or something. BYE! Florida16 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome!--72.186.91.47 (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!! Welcome to WP:PW. Don't worry - I'm pretty new and so far everyone's been lovely!! NiciVampireHeart (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloody hell. Hornetman, you're not getting any better at hiding yourself. The older members of the project know that's you. It all adds up. Newer members won't remember, but the older people don't forget. I trust you will be blocked a sock puppet soon enough, seeing as how that's what you are! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, the IP is also Hornetman (see here). Cheers, LAX 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn it, why do you come back? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, good-bye, cover, good-bye, editing, but you guys need to know the truth. I'm User:Hornetman16. While yes I'm him, User:Florida16 isn't me for once. If you don't want to believe me fine. But it's true. I told User:Thebluesharpdude about my history via myspace email. He could be testing what I said. So, whatever. Don't give up on the above section just because of me. I do think it needs to be documented.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, don't get rid of my good edits.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hornetman, you've been blocked enough times to know all of your edits will be revered since you are not allowed to post. Expect to see that IP address blocked shortly. TJ Spyke 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. Nikki311 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've only bocked it for one month, though. There are restrictions to blocking IP addresses indefinitely, so I would feel uncomfortable doing that. If somebody wants to take it to another admin for an indef block...my feelings won't be hurt. :) Nikki311 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Florida16's only edits have been vandalism, and he/she posted their password on their userpage (a violation of the blocking policy) and have now been permantly blocked. TJ Spyke 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nananahey good-bye (I wish I could stay I took his stuff). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ha, I did too. But let me just say, that if you are trying to hide yourself, why would you just come right out and say, "I am a new user, not a sock puppet, don't block me"? I highly doubt that a new user would know what a sock puppet is (on Wikipedia) That wasn't the slightest bit obvious. iMatthew 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What ever happened to that "Shake" sense of humor? -- bulletproof 3:16 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it would help if I knew what he was originally banned for. Mshake3 (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He has been blocked indefintely and continues trying to violate that by posting. Most of his sockpuppets have been blocked fro vandalism. I think he used up his last chance a long time ago. If you think he should get another chance, you can always bring it up at WP:AN. It won't help his case that he has had at least 7 sockpuppets since he was banned (banning is different than just blocking). TJ Spyke 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want him back? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Just to let you guys know that this article at long last has been created, therefore unsalted! :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the article be at Talia Madison? That is what she's wrestled most as, and the only reason she started using Velvet Sky (which she did after wrestling a PPV match in TNA) is because TNA wanted a name they could trademark (the same reason Brandon Silvestry started wrestling as Senshi, because he refused to give up the trademark rights to Low Ki). TJ Spyke 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful article. Very well-written and sourced. Stupendous job! I've been through it and corrected a few minor errors. :) As for the name, I'd say she's much better known as Velvet Sky. I had never heard of her before she showed up in TNA, sadly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should certainly not be at Talia Madison. If not at Velvet Sky (I would understand not wanting it there, though I personally think that to be the best location), it should be at Jamie Szantyr. Similar cases are Brandon Silvestry and Kia Stevens. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. D.M.N. (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Velvet Sky]] 

message: Wanted to let you guys know that Unforgiven '04 has been nominated for GA status and wanted to see if you guys can check to see if everything is in place. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Unforgiven (2004)]] 

message: I wil be creating this article, with my book Death of WCW as a source. EWC Champion (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Starrcade (1997)|Starrcade 97]] 

message: ...that we now have over 50 PPV articles fully expanded! I think we need to give ourselves a big pat on the back! (Side note: I'm expanding Survivor Series (2003)) D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, don't you think we should make an archive for the page though, I think it is getting to long. Just leave the most recent done and the candidates for GA/FA, either way it is getting a bit too long.--TrUCo9311 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Na. I don't think we need to. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In midst of all the PPV expansion work I've just noticed.... 

message: Paul Wight has signed with the WWE, and it is listed in his article (sourced.)  Someone also placed it in the wwe roster page, but it was removed as a spoiler, which we know is not a valid reason.  I was wondering, should we place him in a category, maybe called "Unassigned Talent."  LessThanClippers (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he should be added to the roster until he actually appears on-air.  He was last with ECW, but he could re-appear on RAW or SD! just as easily.  ArcAngel (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: umm no, remove it. I cant or I might violate the 3RR rule, so go remove it spoilers/specualtion should not be added to articles. BE BOLD--TrUCo9311 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've removed the section from his article, PWMania is a unreliable source. Unless you or anyone else can find a reliable source, please do not insert it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, hadn't actually looked at the source, I have no outside work access, I had jsut noticed all the activity and thought id ask. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul Wight]] 

message: Don't ask me for details, but as of yesterday it is very important that I be informed personally if Hornetman creates another sockpuppet on here. There is a real chance that he's gone for real now, but it is imperative I be informed if he returns. Cheers, SexySeaBass 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If only he was really gone for good. Anyway, you'll be the first personal I notify. You might want to drop a person note on Bulletproof's talk page, because he usually notices H-man's sockpuppets first. Nikki311 03:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, don't ask for details, but the two of us have brokered a deal. He may be gone, but if he isn't that means he's gone back on our agreement. Anyways, I will stop by Bullet's talkpage. Cheers Nikki, SexySeaBass 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornetman 

message: Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article has been created time and time again after it was originally deleted (see here). Cheers, LAX 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently an active deletion review on this at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_14#Talia_MadisonLessThanClippers (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted - everything after the initial deletion is just sheeps going "Oh it was deleted once, can't possibly be notable" and deleting it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta agree here - there seems enough on the page now to at least assert some notability. Keep trying and you'll eventually beat the sheeps. AdaManiac 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If somebody really wanted to create an article on her they could always do so in their userspace, try and source it, then submit the page as evidence to justify undeletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ...and listed for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Sky. --Stormie (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come a Talia Madison page can't be created? 

message: I'm working on the "Background" section for WrestleMania 23 and am coming across a problem that the section maybe seen as too long. Therefore, I think we should move the whole Background section to WrestleMania 23 build-up (can anyone think of an alternative??) and just have the main 3-4 feuds outlined on the main WrestleMania 23 page. In my view its beginning to get a tad too long. Opinions? (I would of posted this on the WrestleMania 23 talkapge, but I'd rather have a wider consensus from the project.) D.M.N. (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, that or it needs to be condensed. I wrote out the entire background section, but I couldn't be sure how much was too much and what I could eliminate. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against this; I think you should just trim the background section, and not mention all of it. Basically, like what I did for NYR07, where I outlined and summarized every single feud without cluttering up the article. Feedback ☎ 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree with Feedback. There is some stuff on there that really isn't notable. I'm all for the trim. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the WrestleMnaia 23 article, and I feel that the feuds should be able to go in-depth. Maybe after I've finished the expansion I'll do a little bit of trimming, but that won't be for at least a month. D.M.N. (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going in-depth is one thing but listing every single match that happened each week before the event is another. The amount of content in there that isn't event relevant to the feuds is ridiculous. -- bulletproof 3:16 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If this were a dedicated wrestling wiki it would be fine, but for Wikipedia a "WrestleMania build up" article is very unnecessary.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the idea at the time was that free images were better than fair use. However, I, and probably you, feel that a more relevent fair use image is better than a generic free use image. Let's just go to WWE.com and get images from there when free candid photography isn't available (and many times it isn't). Mshake3 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this, but this isn't the issue. The issue is that the article is full of images which aren't needed. The article has 2-3 images which are useful (and it can get to FA with just that). So I think all the imagecrusft should be deleted. Feedback ☎ 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WrestleMania 23]] - Background Section - Split? 

message: Are all the pictures in WrestleMania 23 really needed? Pictures of Stone Cold, Bobby Lashley and John Cena which aren't from the event are there. I think that the reader does not need to see the face of these wrestlers while reading the article, because if they don't know who the wrestler is, the wikilink is right there. And each of Stone Cold, Lashley and Cena's articles have enough pictures to satisfy the reader. The pictures of The Undertaker and the world championship and Kennedy winning the MitB are useful, and depict two big moments in the event, while the others are just image cruft. 
On a side note, I think you should get a picture of McMahon being shaved, the interaction between Trump and McMahon, or of his head shaved, because this was like "the biggest moment" of the night and a very notable moment in WWE history which will be remembered forever. Feedback ☎ 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea at the time was that free images were better than fair use. However, I, and probably you, feel that a more relevent fair use image is better than a generic free use image. Let's just go to WWE.com and get images from there when free candid photography isn't available (and many times it isn't). Mshake3 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this, but this isn't the issue. The issue is that the article is full of images which aren't needed. The article has 2-3 images which are useful (and it can get to FA with just that). So I think all the imagecrusft should be deleted. Feedback ☎ 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The pictures

message: hi! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Florida16, and I hope you all will accept me into this community. Please do not block me as some puppet or something. BYE! Florida16 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome!--72.186.91.47 (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!! Welcome to WP:PW. Don't worry - I'm pretty new and so far everyone's been lovely!! NiciVampireHeart (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloody hell. Hornetman, you're not getting any better at hiding yourself. The older members of the project know that's you. It all adds up. Newer members won't remember, but the older people don't forget. I trust you will be blocked a sock puppet soon enough, seeing as how that's what you are! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, the IP is also Hornetman (see here). Cheers, LAX 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn it, why do you come back? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, good-bye, cover, good-bye, editing, but you guys need to know the truth. I'm User:Hornetman16. While yes I'm him, User:Florida16 isn't me for once. If you don't want to believe me fine. But it's true. I told User:Thebluesharpdude about my history via myspace email. He could be testing what I said. So, whatever. Don't give up on the above section just because of me. I do think it needs to be documented.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, don't get rid of my good edits.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hornetman, you've been blocked enough times to know all of your edits will be revered since you are not allowed to post. Expect to see that IP address blocked shortly. TJ Spyke 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. Nikki311 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've only bocked it for one month, though. There are restrictions to blocking IP addresses indefinitely, so I would feel uncomfortable doing that. If somebody wants to take it to another admin for an indef block...my feelings won't be hurt. :) Nikki311 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Florida16's only edits have been vandalism, and he/she posted their password on their userpage (a violation of the blocking policy) and have now been permantly blocked. TJ Spyke 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nananahey good-bye (I wish I could stay I took his stuff). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ha, I did too. But let me just say, that if you are trying to hide yourself, why would you just come right out and say, "I am a new user, not a sock puppet, don't block me"? I highly doubt that a new user would know what a sock puppet is (on Wikipedia) That wasn't the slightest bit obvious. iMatthew 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What ever happened to that "Shake" sense of humor? -- bulletproof 3:16 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it would help if I knew what he was originally banned for. Mshake3 (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He has been blocked indefintely and continues trying to violate that by posting. Most of his sockpuppets have been blocked fro vandalism. I think he used up his last chance a long time ago. If you think he should get another chance, you can always bring it up at WP:AN. It won't help his case that he has had at least 7 sockpuppets since he was banned (banning is different than just blocking). TJ Spyke 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want him back? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Just to let you guys know that this article at long last has been created, therefore unsalted! :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the article be at Talia Madison? That is what she's wrestled most as, and the only reason she started using Velvet Sky (which she did after wrestling a PPV match in TNA) is because TNA wanted a name they could trademark (the same reason Brandon Silvestry started wrestling as Senshi, because he refused to give up the trademark rights to Low Ki). TJ Spyke 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful article. Very well-written and sourced. Stupendous job! I've been through it and corrected a few minor errors. :) As for the name, I'd say she's much better known as Velvet Sky. I had never heard of her before she showed up in TNA, sadly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should certainly not be at Talia Madison. If not at Velvet Sky (I would understand not wanting it there, though I personally think that to be the best location), it should be at Jamie Szantyr. Similar cases are Brandon Silvestry and Kia Stevens. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. D.M.N. (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Velvet Sky]] 

message: Wanted to let you guys know that Unforgiven '04 has been nominated for GA status and wanted to see if you guys can check to see if everything is in place. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Unforgiven (2004)]] 

message: I wil be creating this article, with my book Death of WCW as a source. EWC Champion (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Starrcade (1997)|Starrcade 97]] 

message: ...that we now have over 50 PPV articles fully expanded! I think we need to give ourselves a big pat on the back! (Side note: I'm expanding Survivor Series (2003)) D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, don't you think we should make an archive for the page though, I think it is getting to long. Just leave the most recent done and the candidates for GA/FA, either way it is getting a bit too long.--TrUCo9311 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Na. I don't think we need to. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In midst of all the PPV expansion work I've just noticed.... 

message: Paul Wight has signed with the WWE, and it is listed in his article (sourced.)  Someone also placed it in the wwe roster page, but it was removed as a spoiler, which we know is not a valid reason.  I was wondering, should we place him in a category, maybe called "Unassigned Talent."  LessThanClippers (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he should be added to the roster until he actually appears on-air.  He was last with ECW, but he could re-appear on RAW or SD! just as easily.  ArcAngel (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: umm no, remove it. I cant or I might violate the 3RR rule, so go remove it spoilers/specualtion should not be added to articles. BE BOLD--TrUCo9311 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've removed the section from his article, PWMania is a unreliable source. Unless you or anyone else can find a reliable source, please do not insert it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, hadn't actually looked at the source, I have no outside work access, I had jsut noticed all the activity and thought id ask. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul Wight]] 

message: Don't ask me for details, but as of yesterday it is very important that I be informed personally if Hornetman creates another sockpuppet on here. There is a real chance that he's gone for real now, but it is imperative I be informed if he returns. Cheers, SexySeaBass 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If only he was really gone for good. Anyway, you'll be the first personal I notify. You might want to drop a person note on Bulletproof's talk page, because he usually notices H-man's sockpuppets first. Nikki311 03:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, don't ask for details, but the two of us have brokered a deal. He may be gone, but if he isn't that means he's gone back on our agreement. Anyways, I will stop by Bullet's talkpage. Cheers Nikki, SexySeaBass 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornetman 

message: Can it be rated as a B class? does anyone know his birth date, I looked all over the web for it, but was unable to find it.
--TrUCo9311 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. While what is there is sourced, there is little information about his early life and personal life. Bio articles need to be a little more well-rounded to be B class. Nikki311 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok..thanx--TrUCo9311 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: it also doesn't specify when he started using the name Kofi Kingston and it switches between using his real last name and his kayfabe last name which is confusing. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kofi Kingston]] 

message: Recently a former Wikipedia editor by the name of Chad Bryant edited on the wrestling wiki. Didn't he cause many problems? I can't remember for sure. He hasn't done anything bad yet on the wiki, but that doesn't mean he's changed. The link is:. Also if anyone is willing to help out, let me know. Many deleted wrestling articles could be transwikied there. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he was blocked for trolling. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is in his contribution history as well as his block log and talk page history. He was also the subject of troll abuse from numerous socks impersonating him. (Troll on Troll action O.o?) -- bulletproof 3:16 06:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe as of now, he is still an admin with the Wiki (as he actually did decent edits a while back). This could cause problems. So I will probably request to get his admin status removed if I see problems, or just as a safety precaution due to his behaviour in the past. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few wrestling wiki notes 

message: Anyone feel like a PROD? Nenog (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it looks like he could be a regular in WWE now since he's wrestled 3 weeks in a row (not counting the "ECW Best of 2007" recap show), albeit as a jobber against Shelton Benjamin/Big Daddy V/Mark Henry. It's not like all these other indy workers that make only 1 appearence. The article is in bad shape for sure, but IF he's a full time wrestler on the roster now (i'm not sure), that pretty much makes him notable. TJ Spyke 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not signed with WWE (and contrary to the article he still wrestles for Chikara). Nenog (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it makes any difference, he isn't on the ECW roster page. Nikki311 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know then. At the very least I cleaned the article up a little (although it's still bad). TJ Spyke 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also KAFU, although he is a tad more notable and has signed a contract with WWE. -- Scorpion0422  —Preceding comment was added at 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I say we PROD it, there is nothing  on that article that tells me about this kid. No sources, no bio, this is just a waste of article. IT doestnt matter if he is signed to WWE or not, he will just keep getting squashed. Its not like he is the next "world champion".TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: it's up for deletion here. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update: the article was kept. However, the article needs work. As of now, people keep re-adding EVERY match he has had with WWE. Week by week events of every match he has had, isn't notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tried to do a little cleanup on this article (including taking out the week-by-week results), but I had my edit reverted back, then it was reverted back to my version after I pointed out to the reverter than the edit WAS constructive - then D.M.N. (talk) said "we don't include week-by-week results", only his edit put them back in - so I give up on trying to maintain that one.  ArcAngel (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No I never, I was reverting a previous edit. However your edit was removing half of the article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected, dunno what I was thinking there.  But my edit did take out his weekly results, which is half the article right there, but if the WP:PW consensus was to leave the results out, why are they still there?  ArcAngel (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As he is in the early stages of his ECW career, some of his matches are bound to be on there, but we do not have every single match on their, for instance his match last night about Khali. In a few months, the article will be probably changed further (or whenever decide to make him win). It would probably go then: Delaney was forced to job against people such as The Great Khali, Mark Henry, Kane and Shelton Benjamin, but finally managed to win against _______". That's of course if WWE do decide to make him win. He might even be in the Rumble Sunday. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Colin Delaney]] 

message: There are now two articles from WWE stating Raw and Smackdown! will get new sets. I think we need a new consensuss to wether to add it or not. Article 1 Article 2 (part 1) Article 2 (part 2)--72.186.91.47 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the switch to HD in general is more important than the set. Mention it as part of the switch to HD. Mshake3 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now that this IP has brought this up, the last link from WWE.com says that WWE will use the same entrance set for Raw SmackDown! and ECW. I think that is notable enough to enter into the article no?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I think we should wait until the new set is unveiled on Monday night before adding it. Good catch on the article though since we can use that as a source. Not that it matters, but i'm glad they will share a set (as long as it has 3 lowers video screens like RAW currently has) and they have a entrance ramp, I hated when SmackDown got rid of the entrance ramp. TJ Spyke 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we should wait until after Raw. iMatthew 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah Im glad about this to because ECW deserved a better entrance set. And all the shows deserve a ramp like you said TJ. Now we wont have to worry about uploading different pictures of the sets, we can use the same on for all *sigh*.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do think WP:PW need to go ahead and let the captions of photo's of the old sets be changed so it doesn't say present anymore.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this IP above seems to think that there is a consensus to change the captions in the pics. I don't see any consensus supporting that, does anyone else? See WWE Raw for what I mean, he/she has reverted several peoples edits by saying there is a consensus. TJ Spyke 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I did that to get people to return so one could be reach cause while I understand on not noting it in words it should be noted by the caption by the photo. Everyone admits it's true by the articles yet they won't let it be noting in the most neccesary way...the photo caption. I think this conssensus needs another look at.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Official sources say that the set(s) will no longer be used. In fact, since the last episodes have already aired, the sets are now officially retired. Mshake3 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A photo has been released by WrestleZone, should it be uploaded?TrUCo9311 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this pic? The article on the new set at WrestleZone (http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=202959184) has no picture. WWE.com has a picture, but it's of them constructing the set (not the finished set). TJ Spyke 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Its here...TrUCo9311 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really that good of a pic. If we can't get a better pic soon, maybe. Hopefully someone here on Wikipedia can attend a RAW or SmackDown/ECW (since the same set will be used for all 3, the only thing that will change is the graphics on the screens) and take a pic to release to the public domain (since that WrestleZone pic would be fair-use). Maybe WWE will release a better picture. TJ Spyke 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed.--TrUCo9311 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A free use photo will show up soon enough. Mshake3 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you so sure? TJ Spyke 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amature candid photography is more common nowadays, and a shot of the set is always among the photos. I expect something on Flickr to show up soon. And if not, well then I'll guarantee you an image of one when I'm in Milwaukee in March. Mshake3 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well the pic of the set has been uploaded by someone, and it's straight from WWE.com..is that good?TrUCo9311 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the source of the pic?  WWE?  If so, WP:FU or WP:FAIR might come into play.  ArcAngel (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That pic will soon have to be replaced by a fair-use image (that Mshake3 will provide). The Chronic 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here's one. Now we just need someone to get him to release the rights for one of the images. If not, then as said, I'll give you one in March. Mshake3 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to burst your bubble but those were posted up on WWE.com last night. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought those looked oddly good. I assumed it was a fan because of how far back it was. Mshake3 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sets (revisited) 

message: It doesn't need a link on every wrestlers and tangentially related article. I've added it to the talk page template, can we take it of us less important articles now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdve (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be on the bottom of the main article rather than the talk page template. iMatthew 22:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how most portals work.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule about where portals have to go, or what pages can have the portal on it. Maybe the portal doesn't need to go on indy wrestlers articles, but that's it. As for where, I think the best place is in the external links section (that is where the video game portal link is on Wii, which is a FA and was a TFA before and I helped do much of it). TJ Spyke 23:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the link should remain in the external links. Only for the major articles, exclude articles like the indy wrestlers (like Tj said)TrUCo9311 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll admit that I'm still a little unclear on what the portal is all about, but can someone explain the problem with having every wrestling article linked to it? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:PORTAL: "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." So think of it as the Main Page, but with just wrestling content. TJ Spyke 06:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking the portal 

message: I brought in the tables that were previously in the articles up for AFD (not the length one, though, that I find to be far too trivial). The article is somewhat large now, but not excessively massive (42-43 KB or so). What might still need a little work is the placement of the tables and the heading hierarchy - I just don't know. So, as I said, have a look at it and see what needs to be done. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the tables are considered too large, I can use the show/hide format to hide them under a visible header, like this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use it, because those lists are way too long (especially the tag one) and makes the article look like crap. Nenog (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have a look at [[Pro Wrestling Illustrated]] 

message: WWE recognizes Flair's 10th reign in 1993, unlike PWI. PWI recognizes one of his reigns from the 80s, unlike WWE. His 8th NWA reign and 1st WCW reign are considered by both PWI and WWE as one single reign.
Angle also had a title reign in TNA from May 13 and May 14, 2007, between the time NWA regained control of the NWA World Title and when TNA crowned its first champion (Angle, himself). This reign is not officially claimed in the title history of either organization. It is unclear which title PWI will group this reign with, if they recognize it at all.
:If the tables are considered too large, I can use the show/hide format to hide them under a visible header, like this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use it, because those lists are way too long (especially the tag one) and makes the article look like crap. Nenog (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: So according to his official website, Bobby Lashley is done with WWE. People have alreaqdy added this to his page, but I think the policy is to wait for official confirmation because this kinda looks like a hoax. Am I right, or is a forum post on his official website enough? -- Scorpion0422 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for that Kristal announcement. Mshake3 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure an official post on his official website pretty much crosses off every criteria of being reliable. We do not need to wait for WWE confirmation if its been officially confirmed by his own people. –– Lid(Talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to that, it was a post in a forum from someone claiming to be Lashley, which looks suspicious to me. -- Scorpion0422 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this. It's a hoax I'm guessing. D.M.N. (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gonna have to keep a very close eye on the WWE Roster page about this. I'm up to my my 3RR already. People will insist on removing info without a reliable source. *sigh* NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've got the article Fully-Protected meaning only admins can edit it. Even if it has been confirmed through dirtsheets, WWE have not yet confirmed it. Until so, this information cannot be entered into the article without a reliable source. D.M.N. (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lashley 

message: **Note: This is not a request for people to vote on this nomination.
I nominated the article for Feature Article status a couple of weeks ago. It received an Oppose vote yesterday because an editor had a few concerns. There are two statements that the editor added "Citation Needed" tags to, and I have been unable to find a source:
# The title is represented by four belts (two for each wrestler)
# It is the most prestigious tag team championship in AJPW, ahead of the All-Asia Tag Team Championship
In addition, the editor was confused by what "Times" meant in the table, but I don't see that as a major concern. If anyone knows where we can find a reliable citation for these two items, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request for [[AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship]] 

message: This really doesnt have to do with the project but my user page was vandalised for the FIRST time. So... where do I report this? Feedback ☎ 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No where. Unless, the user keeps vandalizing your page, you can tell an Administrator and they'll take care of it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or WP:AIV. The Chronic 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, watch what you say in the future. Mshake3 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again? Mshake3 (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, at the time I was irritated by ProWrestlingScoops.com and it's pop-ups. Plus the article said: "I, Ryan Clark, can now confirm that Derek Neikirk has been released." (Like if anone gave a rat's ass if Ryan Clark can confirm it. And also, the information was wrong, as Neikirk was suspended. Feedback ☎ 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: If an ECW original won the ECW title under the WWE banner could that be used to complete the ECW triple crown? I ask this because it was on Rob Van Dams championship accomplishments under the WWE.--TrUCo9311 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as the ECW Triple Crown. This was discussed before. Feedback ☎ 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then Im removing it from RVDs page.--TrUCo9311 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW Triple Crown 

message: Check this conversation. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning WON Five star matches 

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Randy Dodge, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Dodge.  Thank you. EndlessDan 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of Randy Dodge 

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Brandon Smith, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Smith.  Thank you. EndlessDan 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of Brandon Smith 

message: The following PPV articles have been declared "Up For Grabs" on the PPV Expansion page. Does anyone wish to completely expand the following articles:
*King of the Ring (1998) 
*Starrcade (2000)
*TNA Lockdown (2007) 
*Cyber Sunday (2006)
*Judgment Day (2006)
*No Way Out (2005)
*No Mercy (2006)
Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Breakdown: In Your House is up for grabs, LifeStroke420 has stop editing the article for over a month now.--TrUCo9311 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPV articles declared up for grabs 

message: How come there is absolutely no personal information, or information of Vader's football career? Kris (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you haven't added it yet?«»bd(talk stalk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it was removed by User:La Parka Your Car, a JB sock, a long time ago. He went through a bunch of articles and deleted all the personal info that wasn't cited. Nikki311 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vader 

message: ...I am starting up a thread here to see what all of you think about unblocking him. Please make your replies as cute and entertaining as possible so I don't feel like I've wasted my time. Cheers, SexySeaBass 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say it but unblocking him even with a compromise isn't going to be as easy as one admin making the desicion, his saction was impossed by the community and it will take a bigger consensus than ours to have it revoked, perhaps in one of the sysop noticeboards. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I told him that no individual admin has the jurisdiction to unblock him, and he understands. He just wants the opinion of the wrestling portion of the community. The only reason I'm even doing this is because I expect it to turn into a joke thread when Bulletproof sees it, and have some fun with this :P. Cheers, SexySeaBass 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even when hell freezes over and is hostilely taken over by ninja pirate zombie robot mongooses. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The one thing that he seems to be continually blocked for is socking. And I know of a certain respect member who was brought back with open arms for doing the same thing. Mshake3 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between said member and Hornetman, Mshake. Hornetman has trolled, added nonsense to articles, and been generally hostile to work with due to his religious beliefs...Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, said member wasn't banned from the community first for being an ass-hat. Said member's good contributions far outweigh any minor transgressions. Nikki311 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Asshat, how I love that word. Sorry, off-topic. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DON'T BRING HIM BACK. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - WikiDrama.  Sweet.  Wish I had seen some of this stuffLessThanClippers (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gavyn Sykes said it all. iMatthew 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hornetman can come back when Big Daddy V wins a ladder match..llsTrUCo9311 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not you we're talking about, Feedback. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't the said member, at least not the one I meant. I had no idea about that. Nikki311 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My block mentioned above was later issued as a block because of my WP:FU violations, which were TRUE (I didn't understand the guideline and I constantly violated it). If I was given a chance, then I think Hornetman could have one too. Feedback ☎ 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On a serious note, I wouldn't mind giving Hornetman a chance, but he kept coming back with sock puppets and adding nonsense/vandalism to articles. If he kept away from doing that, then he could have a chance, but he didn't so I don't see why he should be given a chance, he might just abuse the oppurunity.--TrUCo9311 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In order to be a ban-evading sockpupeteer, you have to be banned for something. Your case was different; you weren't actually a sockpupeteer; you were proven innocent. Like Nikki said, he has been banned by community consensus for being an ass-hat, which is a word I will use until I die of the brain tumor Big Daddy V created when he stopped wearing a shirt. The experienced member that was given a second chance has done incredible work for Wikipedia before and after the incident(s), and the humiliation the editor suffered and the knowledge that no matter how much good work they do, they are always just one foul edit away from a banning is more than enough punishment for a former potential admin. Hornetman can only hope and pray to be worthy of tying this editor's shoelaces someday. Hornetman is a completely different entity. Hornetman never had any respect for consensus or discussion, nor did he have any respect for the editors around him. He was arrogant, mean, and disrespectful. He never did anything worthy of praise, and has done much worthy of scorn. He should never, eeeeeeevvvveeeer be unblocked. SexySeaBass 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Check the links and edit history here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hornetman16 Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What SexySeaBass said. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, so he did vandalise. Fair enough. And my sock comment refered to TJ. But clearly this is two different cases. Be gone hornet! Mshake3 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that people who are extremely bad and evil and just want to cause damage would not say things like this. Obviously, he wasn't ready for adminship, but he still made a good point when he said it's hard to do that when ya'll put me down. You guys suspect dastardly deeds from the beginning everytime Hornetman is around. Give him a break and let's see if he can contribute to the encyclopedia (which he has done before); just don't be hard on him. Feedback ☎ 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the guy even went so far as to create his own Wiki (Inspired by the self centered buttholes of Wikimedia of course!) Got to love the guy's determination... and relentlessness.-- bulletproof 3:16 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and his command of the English language. "Themselfs"? Nikki311 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, dear god...atrocious. He'd better hope he doesn't ever meet my girlfriend, or else he's going to have severe dictionary-induced physical bruising, lol (Yeah, she's a spelling/grammar nazi and proud of it). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In response to Feedback: The RfA that you quoted was before he got banned from the community. If you read the banning discussion (which I linked to above) he was giving many chances by Alison and Deskana, two of the most well-respected members of Wikipedia. It notes in the discussion that he apologized every time he did something wrong, got unblocked, and did it again, which is why he was eventually banned. IMHO, apologies from him are nothing. Nikki311 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True but like I said, at least he can never say that we didn't give him this final chance, even if he does screw up again. In my humble opinion, this project has nothing to lose from this. Give Aaron his shot. If he does fail, he'll just end up proving us right again. It will also be very, very, very... VERY entertaining... -- bulletproof 3:16 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked over some of the examples provided and it seems to me that he's already gotten multiple chances to prove himself unwilling to be a good boy. I'm a Corrections Officer and I see people that've sold drugs to 10 year olds, robbed, raped, and killed on a daily basis. This isn't quite as hard nosed as those subjects, but I've heard every sort of plea for another chance you can hear. Some of those people, a small number, manage to make good on the second chance they're given. Others, however, are given second, and third, and fourth chances and keep pulling the same crap that got them into trouble to begin with. It seems safe to say that Horney can be categorized as the latter. I hate to paraphrase Dr.Phil, I swear to God I do, but a good indication of future behavior is past behavior. I firmly believe that 'cuz, as I indicated earlier, I've seen some of the most extreme examples of it. I'd categorize him as being fanatical. He's got to be right, he's got to have it his way or the universe will explode, the sky will fall, or Big Daddy V'll suddenly spin around and one of his tits'll flop around and the eye out of some 10 year old kid in the front row. Ultimately, it's almost impossible to reason with fanatics. Maybe he just wants back so he can sock it to everybody one last time so he can walk away believing that he ultimately got the best out of it. He sounds immature and arrogant enough to believe just that.Odin's Beard (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I know it’s easy to compare Hornetman to drugs dealers, thieves, rapists, and murderers but that just isn't the case here (I busted out laughing while typing that). Unlike giving drugs dealers, thieves, rapists, and murderers another chance to do their thing, letting Aaron at least try to do something different this time won't cause any harm to anyone. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, or he might try to exorcise the entire project... - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HA! Do necks really break when heads do a 360°? -- bulletproof 3:16 05:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bring him back? he was given too many chances and on more than one ocassion knowingly pushed the limits engaging in behavior that usually ends up with a indef block (legal threats anyone?) was bold enough to wrestle with Deskana, a bureocrat and admin over improper content in user space, as well as harrassing anybody who opposed him, just take a look at one of my favorite Hornetman quotes,  cute isn't it? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guy is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He wants us to give him another chance? Let him have it. Look at it this way. He'll just end up proving himself wrong. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulletproof, I'm not about to support unblocking someone like him just so he can prove himself wrong. He's already done that; why should we waste our time on him? I remind you all, I started this up as a joke. I never honestly thought this would be seriously considered by anyone. He has been given chance after chance after chance; we are far past the point where another chance is a serious option. I'm not too keen on unblocking him to prove a point to him, or let him prove it to himself. That serves no purpose except to give him positive reinforcement for bad behavior. It shows him that if he pesters and begs and whines, eventually we will give in like his parents probably did when he was begging to try their crack in his formative years. The community took a stand when they banned him, saying no more chances, we don't have to sit here and take this BS from you anymore. It is time for us to affirm that stance. If you ask what harm it can do, I say it buys us months more of his sockpuppetry and pestering, and it also shows that we have lost our wills. Giving someone like him another chance doesn't portray us as forgiving and mature, oh no, it portrays us as foolish and weak-minded. SexySeaBass 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only time will tell if he is truly willing to learn from falling on his ass again (for lack of a better term).-- bulletproof 3:16 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In a word no - second chances? He's hand them, I think he's on tenths by now. Bans? he's avoided them with sockpuppets that were easily discovered because he hadn't change at all just put on a little show for a little. Leave him gone, he obviously can't play well with others. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do hope you realize even if you get a commitment from him, neither I nor the wrestling community are likely to cooperate. Also, I wish you luck getting a consensus to unblock him on ANI, which is the only way to override the community sanction. We are friends, Bulletproof, but I question your judgment in this instance, and I want you to understand what you are getting yourself in to. You know that I am no stranger to large and lengthy disputes, and I'm no stranger to going at it hardcore with a friend. If you try to get him unblocked, I'm telling you right here and right now, I will do everything in my power to make sure that you fail. I'm just giving you fair warning, and I want to make sure you know that it's nothing personal. SexySeaBass 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for second chances, but I can't support sanctioning his return. He has not only been indef blocked, by banned by the overall community. Instead of appealing his indef block, he chose to use several sockpuppets to avoid it. He has continued to do the same since the banning. Hell, sometimes he doesn't even try and hide that he's using a sockpuppet (like his most recent IP. I will oppose unbanning him if this is brought up at ANI, he wore out his welcome long ago and this project (and Wikipedia in general) is better off without him. TJ Spyke 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After thoroughly discussing this matter with Hornetman outside of Wikipedia, I have come to realize that it would definitely be in the best interest of the project to not allow Hornetman to return. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If he had asked to be unblocked and it was granted, we would have treated him like we do anyone else. However, he decided to use sockpuppets and continue editing, and we did the correct thing (have him reported and get those socks banned). He decided to do this over and over. He has over 12 confirmed sockpuppets (along with many suspected ones), the only person to blame is himself. He knew what would happened with each of his sockpuppets yet he contiued to flaunt the rules of Wikipedia and continue creating new ones. The Wikipedia community in general agreed that his precense was hamrful and I fully support their ban on him. TJ Spyke 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: that's rich Feed, he was provoked into vandalism and sock puppetry? Yes he's as innocent as a newborn baby *rolls eyes* MPJ-DK (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment Mshake3 made right at the beginning of the conversation about "said member" could also apply to me. I was indef blocked in April last year (WP:LEGAL), went towards some socks, got a second chance to July, and the rest is history. If Hornetman did want to come back, I'm guessing this would be implied. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent idea. I think someone should post Template:2nd chance on his talk page and then we can see if he can actually improve the encyclopedia. Maybe give him a PPV article as part of the PPV Expansion. Feedback ☎ 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That requires community consensus, ie it requires a consensus garnered at WP:ANI. Good luck with that; the admins are too smart to buy the post-modernistic BS you're spouting that we created him. It's called personal responsibility. It was his responsibility to read the rules, and obey them. It was also his responsibility to seek help if he didn't understand them. He was pointed to the policies, what he was doing wrong was explained to him, and there were places and people to turn to if he was having trouble understanding them. He was given every chance to succeed. If he can't handle taking the initiative to give himself the best chance at success, then he can't be trusted with the responsibilities of an editor. He is perfectly capable of being kind, and perfectly capable of learning our policies. However, he has consistently chosen not to. That is his problem; he chooses ignorance, and it is not our responsibility to carry him and coddle him. He is the one with the problem, and we will not own it for him. SexySeaBass 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hybrid, this isn't much of a big deal. This is just a website. And everything in this website is reversable and fixible, which is one of the best things Wikipedia has to offer. So I don't see the problem that would be caused if he is unblocked. If he vandalizes again, you block him. That's it. I don't see the big deal. I just think you should show a little compassion, even though you don't want to. If you still think otherwise, let's just have him unblocked, and ignore him. If he does vandalize, you have all the right to say "I told you so". But still, accepting appologies and giving chances are what Wikipedia is all about and it is much better than aggression and disdain towards another editor. Feedback ☎ 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He is not just blocked, but banned. That means the general community at WP:ANI would have to agree to let him come back. I doubt that would happen, and I would lobby against letting him come back. How many chances does he deserve? Just looking at how many confirmed sockpuppets he has shows he won't change since he knew he was breaking the rules every time. I'm with Hybrid here, bring this up at ANI and I will do my best to make sure he isn't unbanned, his few good edits were far outweighed by his negative edits. Hell, he can't even go a month without making another sockpuppet to get around his banning. TJ Spyke 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You want me to show compassion? You know the deal I arranged with him, the deal is giving him a chance at adminship on the Pro Wrestling Wikia, the Wikia RobJ1981 and I basically own. If that isn't forgiveness and compassion, and proof I don't feel any disdain towards him, I don't know what is. However, for the record, Wikipedia is not about accepting apologies (especially insincere ones) and giving chances; it is about writing an encyclopedia. It is about nothing more, nothing. He has had his chances; he has been given far too many. He wore through the patience of the overall community, and he was blocked by consensus. He continued to violate the rules afterwards, thus eliminating almost any chance he could ever have at being unblocked. He is suffering the consequences of his actions, which is as it should be. I don't buy the argument that this isn't a big deal. I don't care how big of a deal it is; I care about not having naïve decisions be the standard actions of this project regarding those who are causing it disruption. SexySeaBass 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said "That's what Wikipedia is about", I meant the social interactive part of the site and its guidelines. You cannot judge if his apologies are insincere, we should always assume good faith. And you two keep speaking about all the chances he's had, but he hasn't had a second chance. Him coming back with "the sockpuppet of the month" is not wasting another chance. He brings sockpuppets because of the fact that you are not giving him a chance. A chance would be an unban and an opportunity at proving everyone wrong. Has he had that chance? No. Don't start the nonsense that he has wasted his chances, because until someone literally tells him that he has one more shot to do things right during his ban, that won' be true. Feedback ☎ 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... another good point. Feedback, you're starting to convince me again. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced and likely won't be. He has not shown any more maturity since his banning (which came after he threatened 2 admins via e-mail and vowed to "get Wikipedia shut down" after they refused to unblock a confirmed sockpuppet). Using sockpuppet after sockpuppet and refusing to follow any of Wikipedia's rules shows he is not mature enough to edit here. See the discussion regarding his bannin: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive12#Indefinitely ban Hornetman16. TJ Spyke 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He threatened 2 admins? Now that changes everything. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That it an interesting fact I was unaware of before, and does make me even more ardently opposed to an unbanning. In responses to Feedback's comments about a lack of chances, the chances that I refer to took place before the original banning. Feed, I don't think that you understand just how serious a community ban is, especially when Deskana and Alison are involved in such a thing. Under the Hornetman account, he was given every opportunity to shape up. He was given every opportunity to change his path and get it right. He was given every opportunity to take personal responsibility for his future on Wikipedia. He squandered all of them. Deskana and Alison are two of the most forgiving authority figures on Wikipedia, and if he wore through their forgiveness, and the overall communities forgiveness, then as far as I'm concerned the community sanction is justified. I admit, I'm a rather hard person; I have zero tolerance for people who time and time again prove they care nothing for the editors around them, and are just in it for themselves. However, this is Deskana, Alison, and the entire community he wore through, that he pushed to the point of saying "no more, you're done." SexySeaBass 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying Wikipedia will ban the editor forever? He will never be able to shape up and return to the land of the information heaven? I find really hard to believe, that banned members are banned forever... Feedback ☎ 11:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If he hadn't wilfully broken the rules with another sockpuppet less than a week ago it would have helped you more. Hell, if he hadn't edited since his banning in August, I might even been willing to give him another chance. IF he doesn't use any more sockpuppets (and thus not editing here) for the next 6 months, maybe I might change my mind. Not all users are banned forever, but he has not shown why the community should unban him. Feedback, even or project agreed to give him another chance it wouldn't matter. The community in general would have to let him come back and I doubt that will happen considering the sheer number of sockpuppets he has created to evade his ban. If he somehow thinks he can convince anyone, tell him to follow Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals process. TJ Spyke 11:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: At this point I need to point out this wikiproject can not decide whether to unblock him or not, even if you conclude to "give him another chancE" it means nothing without support from either the administrator's noticeboard and/or the arbitration commitee. Unblocking a banned user is not as simple as a thread like this. –– Lid(Talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this was just a sort of "temperature check" to see how an attempt at getting unbanned would fare, we're speaking our minds on a subject, it doesn't mean anything one way or the other but is an indicator of the general community in one of the areas where Hornetman was very active. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? lets just take it to AN/I, there the community can weight in again, that way at least we can say that he received a chance, anyways the odds of consensus changing are almost inexistent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of us have pointed out this conversation is irrelevant to what will actually happen multiple times. It is a good way to test the watter, though, as MPJ-DK said. Cheers, SexySeaBass 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per request of Hornetman...