Talk:Nashville Municipal Auditorium

message: *The wrestling show information should stay. Holding 3 of them, which at the time were WCW's largest and most historic shows, is relevant.
TruthCrusader 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling shows 

message: The edits User:Chadbryant is making are legitimate. Another user came in with the help of a bot and resorted the categories. The version Chad is reverting to is correct. Also, I think it is probably in the best interest not to include the section about the WWE coming to NMA for a 2006 SmackDown show. That is probably not notable, but it looks like Chad now agrees that the WCW PPV information should stay, because those are notable. Any disagreements? --Zpb52 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me at The edits User:Chadbryant is making are legitimate.  His history of contributions notes many, many instances where he made edits and tried to claim them as legitimate by misusing the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" or "harrassment" to suit his own purposes. Then there's the multiple amounts of unwanted, unnecessary, unneeded, and unsubstantiated sockpuppet tags he has placed on Wikipedia almost since first signing up with the site. To say a phrase like "The edits Chadbryant is making are legitimate" is akin to saying "The people Saddam Hussein ordered killed were going to die sooner or later anyway." And yes, that's a bit of an extreme metaphor, but really -- I could list the reasons why I used SH rather than say, Joan Rivers or Ghandi. But if I did, I'd be in violation of policy on both personal attack and civility...and possibly a few others, some of them obscure. So I won't explain why. Let's just say there's a good reason and leave it at that. --FARVA 03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a closed issue. This talk page is not the venue to act out a personal vendetta against another user. Please take that discussion elsewhere. --Zpb52 04:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 15, 2006 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article is in dire need of references, citations and sources. Especially the air-conditioning "factoid". We still need a reliable internet source to prove that this information is true. Leo-Roy! review/gb 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference issue 

message: There is a lot of bias/point-of-view in this article, and whenever I remove it, one of a few specific users will put it back. I'm tagging this for POV. I think whoever's doing this to the article has a few puppets, and possibly a conflict of interest. I'll be watching this article until this issue is completely resolved. Leo-Roy! review/gb 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, The Tennessean is a crappy newspaper, but it is a reliable source for something such as that.  Also, it was somewhat better in its pre-Gannettoid days.  2600:1004:B140:7F52:E955:D13E:6A82:FE6B (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point-of-View Issue