Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. — Torchiest talk edits 13:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

lol you too -- JDC808 ♫ 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC) reply

JDC808, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013! I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :) Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

Thanks, you too. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for supporting Batman: Arkham City and helping make it a Featured Article! Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Awesome! Great job! Now God of War (video game) needs to be promoted. -- JDC808 ♫ 07:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the recognition. Didn't know about this. P.S. Made a spelling correction in the title. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

A year ago, you were the 460th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 460 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for today's God of War II! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for today's God of War: Ghost of Sparta! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you today for God of War (series), "about the God of War video game series, one of the biggest video game franchises of the last decade. It has become a flagship title for the PlayStation brand, and the character Kratos is one of PlayStation's most popular characters. The series consists of seven games (with an eighth in development), having appeared on the PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation Portable, and remastered ports appearing on the PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita, and PlayStation 4. There was also an installment released for mobile phones. The series expanded into a franchise with the release of a comic series, two novels, a web-based graphic novel, toys, prop replicas, and other merchandise. A film is also in development."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

... seven years now -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you today for God of War: Ascension! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Graham Colm ( talk) 20:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you :) -- JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Congrats, it's been a long couple of months I know, since January i think hasn't it? Happy birthday. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • November...but yeah, thank you. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your persistence in getting God of War to FA status. LittleJerry ( talk) 23:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Happy birthday! And congrats on the FA czar  ·  · 03:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey, are you interested in answering some questions for an interview for the VG newsletter? If so, we'd need to get it done ASAP, hopefully by the end of the weekend. Let me know, and I'll put them together and post a link for you. — Torchiest ^talk _edits 13:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Great! Go here, answer all the questions, and leave a note on my talk page when you've completed them. I'll go over it and copy edit for grammar etc, then leave one last note for you to approve it, and it should be out with the newsletter this Wednesday! Thanks. — Torchiest ^talk _edits 00:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay, I've made a few minor changes to it. Let me know if you're okay with it, and we'll call it good. Thanks again! — Torchiest ^talk _edits 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Your work around WP:VG is always very appreciated! :) · Salvidrim!·  ✉ 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

For taking the time to comment on Batman: Arkham Asylum's FAC process. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 07:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Yum, and you're welcome. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 05:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. -- JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This barnstar is awarded for working toward building consensus and improving articles through productive discussion. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that was quick. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The start of the WWE Championship article literally stars with "The title was introduced in 1963 with Buddy Rogers becoming the first champion. " - So no, the history of a company is not really necessary in an article on the championship itself. MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ MPJ-DK: It does start with that, but right after that sentence, it says how the title was created with Capitol Wrestling splitting from the NWA to become the WWWF, and thus establishing the WWWF World Championship. A proper history section states how we got to the creation of the title, not simply stating it was "first teased on a YouTube channel". That's not history to how the title was established. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes "the creation of the title", which does not mean "All In", AEW funded by the Kahn's blah-blah-blah - that is how AEW was created. In the WWE Championship there was actually a backstory to the championship which is what the background explains, not the creation of Capitol Wrestling. As for stating "first teased on a YouTube channel", I simply removed the irrelevant info and no one seems to have added anything relevant to the actual championship. MPJ-DK ( talk) 11:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't explain the creation of Capitol Wrestling, that already existed, but it does briefly explain the creation of the World Wide Wrestling Federation (which is what Capitol became), and thus the creation of the WWWF championship. That's exactly what's happening here. Brief history of the founding of the company (which began with All In), which is what lead to the creation of the title. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Actually it is all about the championship, the reason it was created to replace the NWA title as the top title in the company - background on the championship itself. "All In" is background on the company, the "trademarks were filed and speculation happened" is definitly crufty trivia that has nothing to do with the championship. If it was boiled down to AEW was founded on XX and in the build up to their first show they introduced the championship" or something along those lines that's appropriate for the article, but the rest of the tex that was basically copied and repeated almost verbaum from other AEW articles is just padding an article with irrelevant information. MPJ-DK ( talk) 12:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You're missing the point. It still gives a brief description of the founding of the company. It's why the title was created. Those events, beginning with All In, are what lead to the creation of the title. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no point to "get" since it says nothing about the "founding of the company" other than n the 1950s, Capitol Wrestling Corporation (CWC) was a member of the NWA and by 1963, its executives held a controlling stake over NWA operations so 13 years or more in one sentence, not a whole paragraph on about 10 months and no intricate details. The AEW equivalent would be basically "company was made official Jan 1, they announced the ceation of the championship prior to their debut show DON" because from a title perspective that is all it needs. Does the 24/7 title need have "Well Captitol Wrestling was created in 1953, blah, blah blah and that's why the company has a 24/7 championship" in the article? of course not. But I can type until I am blue in the face, the point is already missed and by now I could care less if it gets all fanboy trivia'ed up. MPJ-DK ( talk) 13:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Wtf? There's no fanboy trivia here. The 24/7 Championship is a new title introduced in a company that has been around for decades and there was no speculation or anything about that title until it was randomly announced at Money in the Bank that they were gonna debut a new title. This is a new title introduced in a brand new company. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Doesn't make sense except that each and every single championship article is like that, so it made sense to every single editor who's worked on those pages. And I guess "Bold, Revert, Discuss" just stops at Revert for you? MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You cited the MOS, but the MOS does not support your claim. But examples other than the 24/7 Championship: WWE Championship, WWE Raw Women's Championship, WWE SmackDown Women's Championship, WWE United States Championship, WWE Intercontinental Championship, WWE Raw Tag Team Championship, WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship, WWE Cruiserweight Championship, NXT Championship, NXT Women's Championship, NXT North American Championship, NXT Tag Team Championship, WWE United Kingdom Championship, NXT UK Women's Championship, NXT UK Tag Team Championship, and WWE Women's Tag Team Championship. Basically all of WWE's current titles, with the small exception of the WWE Universal Championship, which has "Reigns" as a sub of "Title history". Furthermore, all of Impact's championships: Impact World Championship, Impact World Tag Team Championship, Impact Knockouts Championship, and Impact X Division Championship. Almost all of ROH's championships: ROH World Championship, ROH World Television Championship, ROH World Tag Team Championship, and ROH World Six-Man Tag Team Championship. The Women of Honor World Championship has "Reigns" and "Combined reigns" as a sub of "Title history. Do you need more? Some of these have a couple of extra sections and sub-sections, but in terms of "Reigns" and "Title history", they're not separated and all but two here have "Title history" as a section, and in their case, "Reigns" is a sub under it, not separated from it. -- JDC808 ♫ 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes well done you, citing plenty of examples where the championship list is split out. Did you click through to the lists? Did you make a note of the header each list is under? So the majority of your examples actually support what I added for the list portion, but thank you for doing my research for you. Overwhelming majority for the table section being labeled "Title history" as I stated. MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

What? Well no shit I looked at each article that are about championships. This is a championship article, not a list of champions list, which now appears to be what you're confusing this as. And with the examples, like stated, only two have a header titled "Title history", under which there is a sub-section titled "Reigns" (not split from each other). The rest are actually by the MOS and do not have a header titled "Title history". So no, none of those support what you stated. You split "Reigns" and "Title history" from each other on the WWE 24/7 Championship article. You put "Reigns" as its own separate section above "Title history" while "Title history" was its own section that contained only the reigns table ( your revision). The MOS states that the table goes under the header "Reigns" until the table reaches 10+, after which, it is split into a list of champions article. The 24/7 Championship article has not reached that many reigns to have its own separate list of champions. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Oh sure, none of the examples support that the championship table goes under the "Title history" header, right? Wanna look at indy, japanese or Mexican title articles where they are not split? Or just jump ahead to where you come up with some other reason why a few articles should be inconsistent with 99% of similar articles. MPJ-DK ( talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Look, you are the one who originally cited the MOS, which does not support the formatting that you are stating for championship articles, regardless if there are other articles without a separate list that have what you are stating. I've cited the MOS and what it actually says and provided several examples that are in line with the MOS. Since you brought up Mexican titles, lets look at the one that you nominated for FAC and I reviewed and supported: the CMLL World Heavyweight Championship. Oh, would you look at that, it is also in line with the MOS, just like the examples I gave. If we look at the IWGP Heavyweight Championship (which is actually a list and not an article), it does have "Title history" and "Reigns" headers, but it does not have another header titled "History" (and really, "Title history" there should just be renamed to "History"). But, if you notice there, the table is under "Reigns" and not how you had changed the 24/7 Championship article to be (you put the table under "Title history" while also having a separate "History" section). -- JDC808 ♫ 04:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

So you cling to the 1% to prove your point, as I stated jump ahead to where you come up with some other reason why a few articles should be inconsistent with 99% of similar articles. Don't bother replying, I've already read your answer several times. MPJ-DK ( talk) 04:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

No, the MOS, which you are flat out ignoring. I've cited several examples that support it, you've cited none. I looked at every active championship listed at 2019 in professional wrestling#Title changes. Some are in line with the MOS, others are not. The ones that are not are actually lists and not actual articles, which actually further proves my point that you are confusing the 24/7 Championship article as a list. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

As in WP:BRD, you once again only get the revert part down and communicate via reverts and edit summaries instead of engaging in a discussion. MPJ-DK ( talk) 02:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Didn't revert. Assuming that you're referring to the Hall of Famer bit with Bret Hart. Wrestlinglover removed and suggested to put "retired wrestler" and that's what I did (though worded as "wrestling legend"). -- JDC808 ♫ 02:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Excuse the Princess Bride quote - but there is no guarantee that the match will actually happen, with those people, on that date and that the match will have a conclusive outcome. Match is announced, which is all we can say at this point. MPJ-DK ( talk) 00:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

No, I know what it means. The only information (including the hidden information) is what has been announced. We can't predict that there's a possibility that something may change. -- JDC808 ♫ 06:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Only one that seems to have an issue with the NXT Title being included is you.

Instead of taking it upon yourself, take it to the article's talk page, see what others think, they'll come to a consensus, and we'll see what happens.

Works better than the tit-for-tat thing.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: The thing is, there is not an official WWE source that supports its inclusion. There is one source that lists the titles and calls it the Grand Slam, which does not include the NXT title. Right now, you're going off of word-of-mouth from Bayley herself (which we can't use, otherwise, we'd be listing Charlotte Flair too), and third-party sources that have no verification that WWE supports the NXT title's inclusion. We, as in Wikipedia, do not decide the requirements of an accomplishment. What you or whoever needs to do is find an official WWE source (and not Bayley simply saying it) that actually lists the NXT Women's Championship, because at the moment, you're reverting sourced information that outlines which titles are included. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

What are you trying to add here? Something that indicated which brand they won it on? I do not believe you are able to with this type of table. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Galatz Yes. I tried adding the color code in but it didn't do anything. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Hey there, I saw you reverted the edit I've made concerning R-Truth's loss at Frankfurt airport. As someone who lives an hour away from Frankfurt, I can tell you for sure there are no three airports. I guess you saw the the disambiguation page, but I can clear that up for you. First of all, all three belong together. Flugplatz Frankfurt-Egelsbach is a small airfield for light aircraft. Frankfurt–Hahn Airport is a small subsidary of Frankfurt airport (and nowhere close Frankfurt, actually it is in a different state) that only operates flights within Europe and the Mediterranean Sea. Frankfurt airport is the only airport that can actually host transatlantic flights and airplanes the size used by WWE. So yeah, I hope that clears things up a little bit.-- DasallmächtigeJ ( talk) 10:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Ah, okay. Yeah, I was just going off of the airports listed under Frankfurt#Airports but honestly didn't read their descriptions. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to leave a quick thank you for your work on the GAN. I didn't intend to go over any other contributor's head with the nomination btw, I just assumed that if I list it as a GAN on the pro wrestling project people would notice.-- DasallmächtigeJ ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I know we disagree on a lot of stuff, but I did just want to say thanks for everything you do contribute. You make a lot of very valuable edits and go through and clean up a lot of stuff, like on the 24/7 championship, and on the events. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I never tell you to f-off. HOW Dare you accuse me of that!!!! You seem to have a major problem with me. I suggest you find some inner peace. I removed whatever your put in my talk page because it was irrelevant. P.S you spelt "umpteenth" wrong, proofread your edits next time. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 10:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Zerobrains94: You seem to be forgetful, because in your edit summary on your talk page, you said "Stop polluting my talk page with idiocracy JDC808" (i.e., that was basically telling me to f-off). It wasn't irrelevant, you just chose to ignore it as you continue to make the same mistakes.

Here's my problem with you. Back in March, you said "Let's start anew on a clean slate" and I agreed. But then in June after I corrected some issues with reasonable and civil explanations, you go and make a comment like this: "Really JDC808, You must conduct some English lessons for me since you are a master at the language. (1) why is McIntyre/Shane referred to as "the two"? and (2) what is the need of the word " suddenly"?, no need to be dramatic". You basically became a complete ass towards me from that point as I tried explaining myself, but you deleted it, then I tried explaining further, and that's when you told me to "Stop polluting" your talk page. On top of that, you make reverts with no explanation despite there being an obvious dispute. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Well "Stop polluting my talk page with idiocracy" and "f-off" are two different comments. It is your interpretation, not mine. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 12:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how to say this without just sounding rude, but you have poor comprehension, which is another issue. There are a lot of issues that we wouldn't even be arguing about if you knew how to comprehend them (particularly the meanings behind phrases and words). Yes, those are two different comments, but only in the words that are being used. When you said to "stop polluting" your talk page, that was basically the same thing as telling me to f-off (if you meant anything other than that, then please enlighten me, because anyone reading that comment would come to the same conclusion I have). -- JDC808 ♫ 12:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

No I don't have comprehension issues, don't judge me whether it's because of my edits, my typos or whatever. When I said "stop polluting my talk page" I meant that you were explaining something that I already know so there was no need to type out a long paragraph once again. It's simple as that, I will tell you straight like it is. If I wanted to tell you f-off then you would've seen it in my comments. Anyway, you come across to me as a rude person anyway. Zerobrains94 Zerobrains94 ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Really, you already knew it? Then why do you continue to make the same mistakes despite being told multiple times why you're wrong? That's having comprehension issues. There's been countless times things have had to be explained to you because you did not understand it (that stuff you deleted being one of them). You can try all you want to say that you weren't basically telling me to f-off, but you really were or else you wouldn't have made such a rude-ass and childish comment. I might come off as rude, but at least I'm not rude enough to make that kind of comment. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

So you're offended because I'm correcting you on a typo error but what about when you told me to proofread my edits and correct my typo errors as well not long ago? That's not childish and it's not a petty issue. Shame on you, get a life! Zerobrains94 ( talk) 09:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

So instead of responding to what I said in my previous post, you go and change the subject to something completely irrelevant (and something I wasn't even offended by)? That's some great rebuttal (that was sarcasm in case you couldn't tell). But if you are talking about this edit summary, that was just in response to you bringing up one typo I made since you decided to make a big deal about it. An edit summary cannot be edited to fix a mistake, unlike the content of an article, which you can reread after you submit and fix any mistakes you might have overlooked. When I have said proofread in the past, this is what I was referring to because there have been several mistakes, not just one little typo ( I feel like I'm having déjà vu). Again, comprehension. Yes, that is a petty issue and comments like "stop polluting my talk page", telling me to get a life, and mocking me are childish. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

How right you are, I couldn't come up with a counter-argument or an answer to your question. By the way, what was the question because I don't see one in your previous comment? Zerobrains94 ( talk) 11:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't know how you don't see it as it was literally the very first thing in that post. In regard to the repetition issue of names and deleting what I had posted on your talk page, you had said "you were explaining something that I already know so there was no need to type out a long paragraph once again." I responded with "Really, you already knew it? Then why do you continue to make the same mistakes despite being told multiple times why you're wrong?" -- JDC808 ♫ 11:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article God of War (2018 video game) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I notice that Wikilinks have been added in the appropriate fields in citations. However, every instance of IGN or CBS Interactive has been linked, for example, not just the first instance. Since terms are generally only linked once at their first use in articles I assume the same rule applies to citations, but I cannot find where this is covered in the MOS. Perhaps you know definitively. Other than that, I see no issues with the article.

Best of luck with the FA process.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist ( talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Twofingered Typist: Thanks, and in regard to the repeated links in the citations, MOS:REPEATLINK states "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article" -- JDC808 ♫ 02:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Good to know. Thanks! Twofingered Typist ( talk) 11:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I already laid out my case on the talk page of the WWE SD Tag Team Championship article.

Please don't blindly revert things - especially that are sourced.

Again - no source says Kofi IS NOT a champion - it was only assumed.

It's better to have a source that straight up tells you something (like the video confirming Kofi's reign), than ones where you have to guess/assume/infer ("Well Kofi's picture isn't shown here, so he must not be champion.").

You see where I'm getting at?

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: First off, it was not a blind revert. I explained the situation for why I reverted (there's an ongoing discussion regarding the matter). Putting "your case" on the talk page does not automatically mean that your edit should be kept. No, when there's disagreement, the article (or that particular thing on the article), should stay as it previously was until a consensus is met by way of discussion. That has not happened yet. What I see are conflicting sources. Yes, it's annoying but it's what we've been dealt with. Also, it's actually better for us to not include something than to include it and be wrong. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I have since made an edit that does indeed acknowledge the conflicting sources. In this compromise, Kofi doesn't get blanket full credit, but also isn't disregarded either. Sometimes the world isn't black and white - just grey. When you get down to it, we're not dealing with right and wrong here - just interpretations (stuff getting thrown at the wall, and we're left to decipher it). Vjmlhds (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Okay true, but Stratus' is only mentioned twice in the paragraph (excluding her full name) so how is that repetition. Flair' is mentioned thrice in the paragraph. Not sure how is that repetition. Look at the paragraph detailing the Universal Championship. Lesnar and Rollins is mentioned repeatedly yet you claim its repetition for Stratus. Oh, is it because Trish is "the greatest" so everyone must know she's a seven-time champion. Plus you keeping adding "(with Paul Heyman)" next to Brock Lesnar in the matches table. Anyway I have decided not to revert the edit because it will lead to an endless loop of petty arguments between us. The truth is: "Whatever you say, always goes because you are the president of Wikipedia!" Zerobrains94 ( talk) 05:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

It's all in how it's structured. There's enough breaks in the Universal Championship match between the names (with the exception of the last sentence, but it needs the clarification). And why did you bring up something that's long gone in the past and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (in regard to adding Paul Heyman back, I added it like twice, but haven't since to appease you)? Also, please stop with the childish comments (calling me the "president of Wikipedia!"). -- JDC808 ♫ 05:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at SummerSlam (2019) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. StaticVapor message me! 21:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I just feel like it is pretty pointless to revert three times within 24 hours... over the words in a sentence. I don't understand why someone would revert when two different editors disagreed with them. You do good work around here, but I also have seen you rarely add unsourced content to articles too. WP:V should never be ignored even a couple times. StaticVapor message me! 21:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• • @ STATicVapor: The last revert was not only over that repetition issue (more than that had been reverted, which you basically blindly did). This issue goes beyond this article. I've explained countless times to Zerobrains94 to try and avoid repetition, but he just will not listen and I don't understand why (I've explained this on his and my own talk page, and if you look right above this post, he said he would not change it, but then went and changed it the next day). I'm surprised you're actually in agreeance with him here. We should strive for better, stronger language, not repetitive language (unless it's unavoidable).
  • As to "rarely [adding] unsourced content", everyone does it from time to time, and the times I have done it, I didn't have the source at hand, but I knew someone else would take care of it. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Just out of curiosity, besides seven-time champion, what would you have refer to Trish Stratus in order to avoid repetition? I assume is it because that Flair mentioned "seven-time champion" to Stratus during their confrontation on SmackDown? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I just would like to know the reasoning behind it. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 13:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

In part, yes, it was because Flair said that and it subsequently adds more importance to who Stratus is and why it's an important match for Flair in her claim to be the greatest female wrestler. Hall of Famer could have been used, but it's already been used. Any words that describe who she is can be used. The two most important things in regard to Stratus' career are her being a Hall of Famer and being a seven-time women's champion, which was the most (not counting Fabulous Moolah's unrecognized reigns) until Flair broke that record. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hey. I noticed your current FAC nomination, and was wondering if you'd be interested in trading reviews? I'd love to get as much feedback as possible this time around for my nomination, and would be more than prepared to review yours in return. I understand if you don't have the time though. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 ( talk · contribs) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Please, remember the Style guide for the notes colum.

• the new champion defeated someone other than the previous champion.
• If the new champion received the title through means other than a match.
• Match types that were not standard singles matches.
• Why the title was vacated or abandoned.
• The date when the match was aired.
• If the promotion recognizes the start or end date of the reign differently than what actually occurred.

Things like if the referee was dressed as a nurse, R-truth dresses a a pregnant woman, being attack before the title change are things we don't include in the notes section. I agree with the "where happened", since people can see it's not a wrestling match, but I think this info is useless and too detailed.A lot of wrestlers lost ther titles after being distracted, ilegal attacks, but aren't included in their articles. Look the WWE Title, Mankind title reign. It's just "This was a no disqualification match. WWE recognizes Mankind's reign as beginning on January 4, 1999, when the episode aired on tape delay.", not "During the match, Steve Austin interfered, attacking The Rock with a steel chair an pull Mankind over him for the pin." or Yokozuna's "Yokozuna pinned Hart after Mr Fuji threw him salt to the eyes". -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The only thing I doubt is the 24/7 rule suspension but it was just sporadic times (not a long time suspension like the Hardcore title) and has no relationship with the title change, since happened after the suspension is lifted. Also, it's covered in the main article. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Whoa...you went gonzo doing reverts on a bunch of my edits...what's up with that?

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

As per the reason of my revert at WWE Universal Championship. You went and added the NXT titles onto the main roster titles (and vice versa), but NXT is not considered main roster (not yet anyways). NXT is still considered separate from Raw and SmackDown (they're not even included in the upcoming draft, which is an indication of their status). We don't need to be intermingling them like how you were trying to do. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, WWE doesn't use the term "main roster" (which is really a smark originated term), they instead refer to NXT as the third global brand alongside Raw and SD, so that would indicate they consider NXT (at least marginally) on the same level as the other 2. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Also, regarding the draft - NXT has just debuted to a wider audience, so what WWE is doing is establishing those wrestlers to a mainstream audience, and don't want to start rearranging it right after it debuts. Once NXT gets a foothold, then we'll likely see them involved in drafts. It's not a slight to NXT, it's just that they want to set clear boundaries with Raw and SD, instead of all this free wheeling "Wild Card" stuff. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter where the term "main roster" originated. It's a widely used industry term, and the WWE has in fact used that term. Just because it's the "3rd global brand", it doesn't mean it's the main roster. Your response about the draft is all personal opinion OR. There was a discussion about NXT's status. You were in the minority on trying to bring it up to essentially equal or on the same level as Raw and SmackDown. NXT is practically considered its own separate entity (i.e., having its own separate Triple Crown designation, and the fact that after wrestlers get to Raw and SmackDown, their championship records are essentially a separate thing or non-existent, for example with Charlotte Flair, they don't include the NXT Women's Championship when talking about how many times she's been women's champion). -- JDC808 ♫ 04:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

If you're referring to the discussion on the WP:PW page, then no consensus was ever reached. It was a stalemate that was just kinda dropped with no definitive decision reached. I'm not gonna go to war over this, but I do think you're being a tad too strident here. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'm referring to that one. Regardless of consensus, you started adding information to these articles, despite being in the minority in that discussion. The discussion stalled, but most were in agreeance that NXT was not on the same level as Raw and SmackDown and is still considered below them. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Leave the 24/7 title matches on the chart.

You said they've never been included before, but that's only because there's never been title changes on a PPV before - always been on Raw or SD, or on Youtube/WWE.com when they've been on the golf course/airport/wedding/doctor's office/etc.

Can't include things when they don't happen.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC) reply

That's false. Happened at Clash of Champions (title didn't change hands, but a "title defense" occurred). Again, these were not actual contested matches on the card, so no, they should not be included on the match card table (they can be included in the prose of the Event section though). Also, stop trying to use third party sources to back you up as you did here. Yes, third party sources like CBS are reliable and should be used, but this is not a case where you use a third party to contradict the first party. CBS might list those, but WWE, the ones who run and operate the show, do not list them as a contested matches on the card (because they weren't). -- JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Stop removing this already. It's completely sourced, listed in the championship title history on wwe.com and constantly mentioned in Braun Strowman's list of accomplishments, whether that be on wwe.com or the graphics on SmackDown this past Friday. The fact that WWE immediately abandoned the title is frankly irrelevant because it fits the definition of a former championship. So whether you think it should be there or not is not important. If you think for whatever reason (because apparently this affects you) that it wasn't a title long enough to be included then take it up on the talk page.

PS, I just kinda reverted your edits because I'm tired of manually re-adding a source title belt, so sorry if you made any additional edits that need to be added back into the current revision. Just stop removing a perfectly genuine entry... It's not like someone is trying to add the UUDD Championship (not that it's defunct or anything) 174.125.60.159 ( talk) 20:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Oops my bad. I guess you know right from wrong. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 19:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Zerobrains94, unless you're trying to resolve some kind of issue or need to explain reasons for an edit, please don't post stuff like this on my talk page. It's pointless and serves no purpose other than you trying to agitate me. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Okay. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 21:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Please stop changing this back to Chad, doing so will be considered vandalism because the name change is sourced ( https://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/wwe-friday-night-smackdown-oct-11-2019/article/king-corbin-def-shorty-gable). It's stupid AF, but this is official so leave it be already. He was announced as such multiple times, across multiple matches, had the nameplate say "Shorty Gable" and the commentators referred to him as such nonstop. So drop it. 75.121.31.179 ( talk) 19:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC) reply

No, your constant changing of his name to what is obviously a joke would be considered vandalism. His WWE.com profile is still Chad Gable. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply

You are currently the only person insisting it be changed back to Chad. Please stop. The name change is official, sourced and final. I get you like the name Chad Gable, me too, but see here's the thing. That doesn't matter. Set your personal opinions aside and just report the facts. Facts are WWE has officially changed his in-ring name. You have no sources to state this is "just some running gag" and even if it was, the banner, ring announcers and commentators named his such so that is final. Please stop. 75.121.31.179 ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply

It does not matter if I am the only one insisting to NOT change his name to Shorty (that's actually false as others have reverted you as well). You are the one here who needs to stop. His WWE.com profile does not say Shorty Gable. It is still Chad Gable. That trumps the source you are trying to use. This is not a personal opinion of what name I like better. This is based on his official superstar page on the website of his employee, which once again, says Chad Gable, not Shorty Gable. Also, as I mentioned in an edit summary on the drafting pool list, he is listed as Chad Gable, not Shorty Gable. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply

WWE changed it this morning to the new ring name. Evolving name changes are always messy, whether people's stage names, company names, team nicknames... — C.Fred ( talk) 19:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

D-Generation X has 2 words for you: https://www.wwe.com/superstars/chad-gable (ignore the URL itself...)

We don't need to edit war over this. If you still disagree talk pages exist for a reason. 75.121.31.179 ( talk) 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a talk page, however, you were trying to change it before the change was made official. Now that it's official, it can be changed. ---- JDC808 ♫ 19:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Bro, it was official days ago... This is a user talk page, not the talk page in question. 75.121.31.179 ( talk) 19:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

No, it just became official today (by way of his superstar page, which is what we go by). This is a user talk page, but it is still a talk page and it was addressing the content of the article (you posted on my talk page, and never once said anything about the article's talk page, so instead of splitting a dispute across two talk pages, I kept it at one). ---- JDC808 ♫ 20:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Okay look, I wasn't even talking to you 192.73.23.2 so idk why you're here. It was official days ago when his name plate read "Shorty Gable" and the commentators said it was official... 75.121.31.179 ( talk) 20:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

That was me. Wasn't signed in when I made that post ---- JDC808 ♫ 20:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

They are still statistics on the wrestlers that won them at that current time. Even if it's one, its still valid statistics to keep track on. You can changed them up when there's more wrestlers that won them, no? Even if you found it redundant, I'm sure that there are still people who find it interesting *such as me for one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad2810 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That's not how Wikipedia works. There's only been one champion. Jericho automatically checks all of those boxes as he has been the only champion. There's no need for Wikipedia to state the obvious. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

(No Idea how to reply so Ill reply it like so, It's also 4am here so spellings might be wrong please excuse me). There are indie wrestling wikipedia pages that follows as so even with one title reign. I followed as such. You can still list them accordingly. When there's another winner we can just edit it as such as well. Wouldn't it be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad2810 ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

You did it mostly correct. The only thing you need to do is indent your response with one more colon than what my response had (I had one colon, so you would have two, and so on). But in response to your post, no, it would not be better. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we do that on every article. Also, key word there is indie wrestling. Those do not get the kind of attention that big promotions do and things like this issue slip through the cracks. The info is still there, it is just hidden until the next champion is crowned, then we can unhide and edit the parts that need editing. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

(Hope this is correct, how do you sign your post then?) Fair enough if it's just hidden. I thought you may have delete it which I dont appreciate it as well as calling stats pointless since I work as a statistic person. I would also say that "Heaviest Champion and age should still be there" non the less since they aren't exactly "obvious", Most Reign and Longest reign i can see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad2810 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Indent is correct. For signing your post, at the top left of the editing box, there's buttons for bold and italics. The third button from the left (kinda looks like a cursive signature) is the button to press to add your signature (just make sure your cursor is at the end of your text when you press it). You can also just type four tildes (~) at the end of your message (the button is easier). In response to your message, no it's not deleted, just hidden. I didn't say that statistics were pointless. They are important, it's just a bit silly to list them at the moment when there's only been one champion, so there's no one to compare him to. Because he's been the only champion, it technically makes him both the oldest and youngest champion and both the heaviest and lightest champion. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Aite found it I hope this one is correct as well. We could just hidden the repeating bits though, like for oldest and youngest champion, we can remove the youngest one (since I would say, most if not all would be younger than him theoretically. And as such, the oldest champion stats would still be there, since well.. his a champion. -- Shad2810 ( talk) 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't get it. Why there is a limit when Jericho won the title? He is getting older, he is the oldest champion at 49, not 48. Some independent and mexican titles are held for years. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 20:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

True, he is getting older, but we track it based on the age they were when they won the title. This is what the MOS says. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, sometimes the MOS is wrong or we can change it. For me, it's a nonsense, the limit should be when he lost the title. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That would be something to take up with the project. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: He wasn't 49 when he won the title. He was 48. You don't go by current age. If we did, that would mean it would have to be changed every year if he held it for years. That's not how things work. Don't change it. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 08:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Don't revert the AEW World Championship article. AEW tracks win-loss records not the amount of defenses per reign. You want it apart of the title history. That means the burden is on you to prove that AEW tracks defenses. You don't just add because you think it should be there. That's not how this works. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 08:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

First off, don't make it as if "I want it there." It was placed there by another editor early on and I actually questioned it but did not remove it. It then started to get removed following this last PPV, particularly by Galatz under the claim that they do not track it. However, you nor him have any actual proof that they do not track it, which is why I have been restoring based on the fact that all of their matches are indeed tracked, which would include title matches/defenses. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

You keep reverting, so you do want it there. Tracking win and losses is not tracking the amount of defenses per reign.. Show me where they track the amount of defenses then and only then will it be added. I went through pages and pages of results and that is not something they track. But again, the burden is on you to prove that they track the amount of defenses per reign as you keep reverting. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

It's not a matter of me wanting it there, it's a matter of it being removed without proof to back your claim that they do not track it. Know the difference. I say the burden is on you all to prove they do not track it as that statistic had been there for over 2 months and only now is it being removed. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

It shouldn't just be added because you and or others deem it should be there. You can't tell me that it should be because you haven't brought fourth anything to show it does. I've done my due diligence. You should do yours. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 03:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The WP:BURDEN is always on the person who wants it added, not the person who wants it removed. I work for AEW so I am going to add me to their personnel list until you can provide me with a source that specifically says I do not work there. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you are interested but I recently nominated The King of Fighters XI to GA. If you are interested in reviewing or just editing it, I'd appreciate it based on your experience with this project. I also edited The King of Fighters article but I'm not interested in nominating it. Just an advice would be okay. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I can take a look at it, but I'm going to be busy basically every day this next week (just got asked to play in the pit orchestra for a musical and this week is tech week followed by shows at the end of next week). If no one has started the review by the end of next Saturday, I can do it. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

No prob. Take care. Outside life matters most. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Based on your edit here [5] "There has not been a consensus reached on" WP:VG/LEAD. I reccommend you to discuss this at MOS:VG as you seem to have some reservations about it since it is currently a part of MOS:VG. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

There is an ongoing discussion about this very issue on the VG talk page, which we both are a part of and no consensus has been met there. Your edit introduced a very issue brought up there about redundancy. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Does the wrestling WikiProject have any differing guidelines on overlinking than other Wikipedia communities? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ ViperSnake151: overlinking is a Wikipedia-wide policy – MOS:REPEATLINK. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello JDC808, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker ( talk) 14:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello, I see that you added information to the Royal Rumble articles. I'm concerned about some of the phrasing as it related to the "Big Four" pay-per-views. This is not a term that was used when some of these events aired. In the RR88 article, you say it went on to become one of the Big Four. That seems fine. However, for RR94, calling it one of the Big Four doesn't work well, in my opinion. There were five annual PPVs at the time, and the WWF didn't distinguish them into tiers. The idea of different tiers of PPVs didn't come until the In Your House events, and King of the Ring was still considered to be in the top tier (the Big Five, if you will, although I don't remember anyone ever calling them that). Is there a way we can fine-tune the phrasing so that it fits each article? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ GaryColemanFan: I've done some tweaking. Not knowing exactly when the "Big Four" phrase began, I went up to either the 1997 or 1998 event with it saying "It has become one of the "Big Four"..." (as opposed to "It is" on the earlier ones). If you think that is not enough, feel free to further tweak it. -- JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Elimination Chamber (2019) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply

– Utopes ( talk) 04:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

But fiend status is on SmackDown already Abhishek Gandha ( talk) 16:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I assume you're talking about my edit at WWE Universal Championship. Yes, The Fiend's status was SmackDown, but the title did not change to SmackDown until after he won it. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I am sorry I did not update the rest of the article, but I wanted to wait and see if by the end of the night R-Truth would win back the title, like he usually does, before changing the article completely. I have changed the article completely before only to change it back due to Truth winning it back later the same day. I just wanted to wait and see if by the end of the night he would get it back and then I would have changed it. I Am Awesome 061796 ( talk) 03:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

While I can understand the fact that the title often changes multiple times during one show (which can be annoying to keep up with in terms of updating the articles here), the whole article still needs updated as anyone can be reading the article at anytime and it appears wrong if the lead says one thing but the reigns table says something else (going by your approach in waiting, it would probably be best to just wait until the whole show is over before even updating the article with the first title change of the night; though someone else of course could update it while you were waiting). -- JDC808 ♫ 03:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Please see wwe official united state title reign then undo the data Abhishek Gandha ( talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi JDC808, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 22, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2020.— Wehwalt ( talk) 23:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not gonna make a stink about the 2020 Rumble, but can we agree to this going forward:

For future Rumbles - now that it has been established that NXT Titles are also options for the winner - can we just automatically include NXT in the mix, now that the precedent has been set?

Vjmlhds (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

What precedent was set? They have had NXT wrestlers in the rumble for several years now. Nothing was promoted on NXT at all regarding this event. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The precedent that NXT titles are options for the Rumble winner - wouldn't that give NXT a stake in the Rumble automatically (again this is for future Rumbles, not 2020, as that ship has sailed)? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Assumedly. All depends on what they decide to do next year. -- JDC808 ♫ 08:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Similar to other articles, like the 2011 and 2012 edition, we onlu include the most prestigeous titles. Michaels and Edge titles aren't listed, just the most important ones. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That just seems wrong. It says "WWE recognized accolades". Not including those championships that they won in WWE in turn comes off as that WWE does not recognize them. Those older articles should be updated. And in response to the Hardcore and European titles not listed on JBL's page, they are listed on his Superstar page. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Articles aren't needed to be updated. It's a brief summary of his accolades, no the whole thing. If you want to see every title Edge or Michaels won, see his article. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 00:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That's not the point. It's "WWE recognized accolades", not "Some of WWE's recognized accolades". Their articles would list everything in and out of WWE, which the latter they do not recognize (with a few exceptions). -- JDC808 ♫ 00:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That's the way we do. [6] [7] -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 00:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Just because that was done then does not mean it was right. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

For me, there is nothing wrong with the section. Just a small resume of his career, not an in-detail coverage of every title the wrestler won, since most of them aren't relevant for his hall of fame induction. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 01:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Aren't relevant? By who's criteria? WWE thinks their important enough to include on his Superstar page, so why would we not include them for his HoF accolades? -- JDC808 ♫ 01:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Again, that's who works. If a wrestler held several titles, we include the major ones. If you want to know more, read the wrestler article. WWE includes in JBL profile since it's his official profile with every itle he won, no just a few. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 01:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That's not who works? What? I'll reiterate a previous statement, but with a revision. It's "WWE recognized accolades" not what a select few Wikipedia editors decided were most important. -- JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Stop. If you think the project should to reevaluate, start a discussion in the talk page. Until then, the consensus is most notable titles. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: Actually, it's not. There is not a guideline in the style guide that says that. The discussion you linked halted, so no, there actually was not a consensus. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

As I told you, that's how the project has worked for several years, and, per WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.". As I showed you, there are several user who worked in that way for years. You want a change, ask for it. Until then, consensus remains the same. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: But there was and is dispute, so no, there was and is not a consensus, which you aren't seeming to understand. Doesn't matter "how many users worked that way" if they were wrong. We are Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. We are not the ones who decide what is and is not recognized by the promotion who hosts/owns this Hall of Fame. And once again, the section is titled, "WWE recognized accolades" NOT what a select few Wikipedia editors decided were most important. It's titled "WWE recognized accolades" yet we're not listing what all they recognize. What sense does that make? -- JDC808 ♫ 11:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You think we are wrong, i think we are right. You are free to start a discussion in the project talk page-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: It's because you are wrong. You're saying one thing but meaning something else. Again, what sense does that make? I've pointed out the faults in your argument and all you can come up with is "I think we're right" based on a false consensus. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

that's how several user have worked since, at least, 2012. Again, start a discussionin the right place-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: Don't use past mistakes to support current decisions. Again, you haven't actually answered my question of what sense it makes to do that? -- JDC808 ♫ 11:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The idea for the "WWE recognized..." was to include just titles regoniced by WWE (WWE, WCW, ECW, AWA and, lately, some NJPW titles like Liger). Just to exclude titles for other promotions that users included, like TNA titles for Sting and Kurt Angle. It doesn't mean "every WWE recognized accolades", just the most important [8]. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: But that's not what it says. It says "WWE recognized accolades", not what some Wikipedia editors decided are most important of what WWE recognizes. I keep repeating myself because you are not understanding what is being said. You are still contradicting your own words. There is nothing there that indicates to readers that we are only listing the most important accomplishments (and who are we to decide that anyways?), which is really the whole issue. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hey man I'm sorry for my behavioral actions on page WrestleMania 36 WweSpiderman 15:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWESpiderman ( talk • contribs)

It is easy to get heated on these things. I know, I've been there. You just gotta keep a level head and not let your anger get the best of you. -- JDC808 ♫ 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Earn from WIKIPEDIA RB2616 ( talk) 05:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

lol I wish I could earn from Wikipedia for all the editing I do. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I saw your comment about how WWE is confusing as to whether or not to count all New Day's reigns as "Freebird".

My $0.02...truthfully, I think we (as in the collective Wiki "we") tried too hard to assume things ("well, it didn't count for Kofi here, and didn't count for Woods there) because of things like people not being in pictures and that kind of stuff.

End of the day, all New Day team reigns count as individual reigns for all 3 members...that's always been their deal.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: It wasn't so much of us assuming things, it was WWE putting out conflicting information where they did and did not recognize certain members. Like with their 5th reign, they put out an article about Kofi surpassing 1000 days as champion, but that was false. He would have actually been at like 1050 days at the time of that post if they had counted the team's 4th reign when he was WWE Champion (the math didn't add up). Then there's the legitimate fact that Woods was out for the entire 5th reign because he was injured (he wasn't even on TV during that time except for like an appearance on WWE Backstage). -- JDC808 ♫ 00:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I guess...a little from column A, a little from column B, who knows? But all that being said, at least now we do have a clear statement from WWE.com that all team reigns count as individual reigns for all 3 New Day members, so it's a moot point. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Don't change the name of the article. Revival stills the WP:COMMONNAME. Also, several sources still calling they "The Revolt, formerly known as The Revival", so isn't meet NAMECHANGE. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This is to let you know that God of War: Ascension has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 5 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I won't contest this any further, but it is also at List of WWE tournaments. If anything, it should be transcluded. JTP ^{( talk • contribs)} 06:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I have no issue with transcluding (that's something I don't know how to do though). -- JDC808 ♫ 06:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. Do you think Whatculture is also for opinion? According to the discussion on the noticeboard, WhatCulture is formed by several people with "no relevant experience or actual qualification". [9] As other user said for Watchmojo, they are no-experts for their opinion. It's just an opinion. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: That's the thing though, what it's being used for is as an opinion, nothing more. Plus, when was the last time WhatCulture was put up for review on its reliability? Things have changed there in the past couple of years. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

But it's not an expert opinion in the field of pro wrestling. His opinion has the same weight than yours or mine. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Expert opinion is debatable, and again, when was the last time they were put up for review? Comparing him to us isn't quite the same. He's technically more of an expert than us in this regard considering he works for a part of a company that is explicitly about pro-wrestling where we're just mere Wikipedia editors. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Killzone3HelghastEdition.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 17:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Man Jon Moxley is current IWGP United States and AEW World Champion in both we use without wrestling gear title.

First, make sure to sign your posts. Secondly, we don't have any free pics of him with either of those titles or recent pics of him in his gear. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Man I remove because it's already present in History why we put 2 time in a page King Rudra ( talk) 06:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The lead is a summary of the article. -- JDC808 ♫ 06:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I want to say something that I previously edit Brodie Lee title reign one week ago but someone undo my edit because of Dave Meltzer tweet .Why

King Rudra (
talk) 07:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
reply

I wasn't involved with those edits, but probably because there were conflicting reports, because some had said that Rowan interfered to help Brodie Lee win, which did not happen. -- JDC808 ♫ 07:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I see you had the article name changed from "TakeOver XXX" to "TakeOver: XXX". I had it changed back. Go to the talk page of TakeOver XXX and you'll see links to several articles written on WWE.com in the last 48 hours, including the results page written a few hours ago, where they clearly stylize it as TakeOver XXX, no colon. OldSkool01 ( talk) 07:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm HHH Pedrigree. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

@ HHH Pedrigree: Really? Are you going to be this ignorant about this? Accusing me of unconstructive edits and vandalism? You're taking this "not what the sources say" way too seriously. Once again, The Undertaker said it himself. It does not matter what any source speculates on this. If anyone is being unconstructive here, it is you for blindly reverting valid edits. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

There is the f**k the sources attitude again? There is any problem to leave in that way? Taker said he has no desire, but not he is retired, he was ambiguous. Several sources (PWInsider, WrestleView, BBC) stated that he hinted the retirement, which is true. The article says that, Taker said he has no desire but he was ambiguous about retirement. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: Yes, because they're speculating, despite what Undertaker explicitly stated (reliable sources can be wrong by the way). It is an issue to leave it as is because it ignores what he says, which was that he has no desire to wrestle again and he would only maybe return if Vince was in a pinch and it depended on the situation (i.e., the opponent and his own physical health). Also, why do you think the series was titled The Last Ride? Because it chronicled his "last ride" in wrestling (his last couple of years leading to his last match if that wasn't clear). -- JDC808 ♫ 12:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

You're speculating. "He has no desire, so he is retired". Like "the coat and the hat is in the ring, he is retired". Or "He wrestled The End of an Era match, he is retired". Sources (many of them9 stated that, he has not desire but didn't confirmed the retirement. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: I'm not speculating. I'm going off what the man himself said. Also, the End of an Era match was an absolutely poor choice to use as it was never ever stated that either Undertaker or Triple H would be retiring after that match. Secondly, the coat and hat was legitimate speculation from all parties. But you know what makes this different from any previous scenario? We have direct word of mouth from The Undertaker himself, so again, it does not matter at all what those sources speculate. What Undertaker says trumps anything that any of those sources say. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sources aren't speculating. Sources point he never talked about retired, just hinted. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: If you truly believe that the sources are not speculating, then you should not be editing in regard to this topic. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

They aren't speculating. You're the one who is removing WP:SECONDARY sources because you don't like them. BBC summarized it very well "His words suggest plans to retire after a career spanning three decades. But neither Mr Calaway nor the WWE have formally announced his retirement from the league." -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: Yes, they are speculating. Most wrestlers never right out say, "I'm retired". There's a difference between "not liking" them and them being wrong, which you apparently can't see. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No, they're not. You're speculating based on taker's words. Several secondary sources pointed he hinted the retirement, that's what the article says. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm HHH Pedrigree. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to WWE Championship have been undone because they did not appear constructive. It was removed by 3 different user and stills unsourced. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi JDC808,

I'm writing to you because you are listed as a member of the Wikiproject Pro Wrestling, and I'm in need of a third (actually fourth) opinion on two pro wrestling article. (Sorry to add to your burden. The current dispute won't go anywhere without external comments.)

The thing is, Hartley Jackson recently went through an AfD that arose a lengthy of discussion.
I will try to summarize the problem below.

Jammo85 had asked me for assistance in find sources to a certain fact, and I did find some good sources, but we are still facing opposition from another user in Hartley Jackson and The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK).
I would thus like to ask your opinion on the matter.

We would like to state "Hartley Jackson was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel in 2015 and 2016."

I have found two sources from websites of official pro wrestling events (they are archived, please give it a few minutes to load):

• https://web.archive.org/web/20170303035516/http://melbournecitywrestling.com.au/2016/06/18/hostile-takeover-2016/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160502062934/https://wrestlerampage.wordpress.com/ which despite being wordpress, it was and still is the official website of the event

and Hartley appears on the TMDK side on both.

Also, there is also a listing of his appearances as TMDK here, which corroborates the above:

• https://www.cagematch.net/?id=29&nr=1293&page=2

but this website is listed in one unofficial list of reliable sources as being Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database. The other party uses this against us, but I actually think it supports us, as we are actually only using results here. That is, we are not using the blog posts produced in cagematch (see [10]).

I thought the above sources were enough, but there are some more if you would like to see: ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

Can I have your opinion on this?

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC) reply

When Kofi is WWE Champion That time only Big and Xavier are champion.(fourth reign of Big E and Xavier Woods)

Then at fifth and Six reign of The New Day Woods Injured so we include only (Kofi and Big)

Then at Seventh Reign new day breacks only (Woods and Kingston are champion)

So my request to you please change days for reign in Big E , Kingston and Woods for the title King Rudra ( talk) 09:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

From this conclusion Big E and Kofi Kingston are Six-time Tag Team Champions And Xavier Woods is Five time King Rudra ( talk) 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

As a group they are seven time but as an individual they have different reign King Rudra ( talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Please Give me response Yesterday The edit revert by Snowycats is totally Wrong he made thrice revert for the match that didn't going to take place on Hell in a cell that is Ziggler and Sharai vs Candice LeRae and Johnny Gargano.So Results I remove that match twice from the article he says that it's vandalism made by me. King Rudra ( talk) 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Sarcasm is everybody's first language now. But you could have removed that redundant information in the note of the AEW World Championship without the need to leave a sarcastic edit summary. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 17:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

In title history defence include only successful or all the defence King Rudra ( talk) 07:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ King Rudra: Title defenses are only included if and only if the promotion tracks the title defenses. If the promotion does in fact track the title defenses, then it would be successful defenses, because unsuccessful means they lost the title. There might be some variables, such as a DQ finish or no-contest, but I don't know all of those details as I mainly only work on WWE and AEW articles, and neither of those promotions track title defenses. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Ok King Rudra ( talk) 05:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hey JDC808, I'm not really inclined to participate in edit wars nor am I in a tone where I'm trying to prove a point. Your minor edits on WWE Tribute to the Troops are appreciated. Thanks for clarifying in the edit summaries :) Exceller88 ( talk) 06:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your many helpful edits to the page of the WWE ThunderDome. I appreciate all your help, it's been very useful. :-)

TheVaughano ( talk) 13:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TheVaughano: You're welcome. I saw that the article got made, and I like helping build articles from the start. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply

First off, thanks for removing that vandalism on the AEW World Championship article. Now, when removing vandalism, use the revert function. If not, use the edit summary. Sizeable edits or removals of vandalism should always have an edit summary. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 10:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Are you serious right now? You attacking me because I did even provide a reliable source for the Royal Rumble (2021) edit. Let me get this straight. Vjmlhds joined Wikipedia since 2008. That includes you JDC808, you joined Wikipedia since 2008 as well, that's 13 years. I joined Wikipedia in 2017 so I have only been a member for 3 years now. Yet somehow, you think I know where to provide a reliable source or if I'm knowledgeable in that field to provide reputable sources. Been a member on Wikipedia for many years does not mean they should know which sources to make use of. I have to admit that there are still a couple of things I still need to learn in Wikipedia. If you knew where to quote a reputable source, then quit your complaining and edit it yourself. There is no need to act sarcastic and attack other users as if they have been on Wikipedia for so long that they knew which source to make use of. Anyway, I thought that we both put that crazy 'rivalry' behind us, (edits regarding repetition and other issues). I even apologized, yet somehow you still assume I know this and that and then make crazy comments. (one edit I remember is you assumed I knew what 'under the bus' means.)

In regards to providing sources, I aim to better myself, do my homework and locate the source and make use of it when editing articles. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Zerobrains94: You took that way too personally. Stop making these things so personal. That's a major reason previous issues between us have occurred. You pointing out the fact that Vjmlhds has been on Wikipedia as long as I have is proof enough that he should know how to locate and cite sources. It's really not that hard and is one of the first things you should learn to do when you start editing (if you're going to be editing frequently and on a more serious level, which you have). You've been on here 3 years, which is more than enough time to learn how to cite sources (even if the format is bare minimum, for example, just using the barest of formats: <ref>url of the source</ref>, but you can also just copy-paste the previous source and replace the details). The sources we use for the Storyline section are almost always from the same website — Pro Wrestling Dot Net. All you have to do is click on the previous source used and find the article for the next episode. Also, I did find the source, because like 95% of the time, I'm the one who does, but others need to learn how to do it too if they're going to add new information. Vjmlhds added new information, but put it in a spot where it was being cited to the previous source (you edited what he added, which is why I also mentioned you in the edit summary). -- JDC808 ♫ 18:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Okay fine, but regardless you should know that all users on Wikipedia are different individuals. Different things may affect users in a number of users, including personally. I'm not saying I took that personally. All I'm saying is just consider other users perspective and their sentiments.

Regarding editing pages and citing sources, I have to admit I took me a while to learn to do all of that properly when I first started editing.

Next time if I do provide a source, I will make use of Pro Wrestling Dot Net. Thanks for the heads up. Zerobrains94 ( talk) 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Per previous consensus, NXT title is not a world title. If youwant, you can open a RfC in the talk page to change that. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I know about that. I was there and took part. This essentially trumps that now. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply

If you're moving references and adding a section, please indicate that in your edit summary. You also did not answer my question about what vanity press reference was being removed. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GaryColemanFan: In doing mass edits across multiple articles, edit summaries are the last thing on my list to remember to do. Didn't know what you were referring to by a "vanity press reference," but I believe what that's referring to is The History of Professional Wrestling book (which covers 1990–1999), which is citing the information regarding In Your House in that Background section -- JDC808 ♫ 05:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

If you don't have accurate edit summaries, you can expect some of your edits to be reverted. Speaking of which, it seems like you do a lot of arguing in edit summaries during reverts rather than actually trying to discuss contested changes. More talk page discussion would be preferable. Some people might view your reverts as edit warring and presuming ownership of articles. In this instance, it could have avoided confusion if we had both followed my advice and used the article talk page, as the vanity press tag appears to have been automatically added as an edit summary, as you were adding a book from CreateSpace. It looked to me like you were removing something and using "vanity press" as justification, as your edit summary didn't provide enough clarity or context. With that said, Graham Cawthon seems to be viewed as a reliable source, so the source should meet the SPS criteria. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't want it to appear that I'm banging on you, because you've actually had my back on other topics, and I appreciate it.

But please stop putting in those oversize pics of Lashley and Reigns...it's not necessary.

Lashley hasn't aged a day in 15 years (and it really isn't that big of a deal he's wearing gold trunks in the one pic), and Reigns' look has been the same since day one.

Aesthetics do matter - can't have pics just thrown up there, especially on a chart where neatness counts a bit more than other places.

Gotta have some structure to it.

Vjmlhds (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

AUTOPATROLLED in a total number of edits King Rudra 07:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

You have to create valid articles. I don't know what the exact number is. -- JDC808 ♫ 08:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring God of War (franchise) (estimated annual readership: 1,092,608) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers!  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Been combing through some VG articles and seeing which editors are eligible for the Million award and you are. Since its promotion to FA in May 2016, God of War (franchise) has had an average annual view count of 1,092,608 (excluding MP appearance). Good job, keep it up. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Real life intervened before I could put in the references for the WM 37 celebrities...had every intention of doing so, but, kept getting pulled away.

You know I usually make sure to include references (you give me a hard time for the way I do it, but I always put them in).

Thank you for adding them yourself. As I said, I had every intention of doing so myself once I had a little time, but you beat me to it, and I appreciate it.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: I give you a hard time for the way that you do it because it's very basic and doesn't give all the necessary information for a citation (the one thing I can say about the way you do it is that it at least isn't the bare url that some do). I believe I said it on your page, but we want these to be quality articles, and that includes the source formatting. As you know, Wikipedia gets a bad rap, and the pro-wrestling project gets one too from the other Wikipedia communities. The better we can make these articles, the better for Wikipedia as a whole and all those who read these articles. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I've always done references that way (on all kinds of articles - not just wrestling - over many years), and truthfully you're the only one that has criticized me for it. Bare URLs are just lazy...gotta give a little context at minimum. It really does come down to preference...your way is a gourmet meal, my way is ordering a pizza, but it accomplishes the same thing. Just comes down to how many bells and whistles you prefer. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: I had also done references a certain way before I learned the more correct way and I learned earlier on instead of doing a more informal way for years (and citation formats are universal across Wikipedia). I may be the only one who has criticized you for it, but it's because I want these articles to be better in all aspects. Many of the pro-wrestling articles I've come across here have been horrendous. They're either not sourced, they're under sourced, they have incorrect formatting all over the place, there's overlinking, etc. It's terrible. Also, it's not "my way," it's the standard, and what you're doing actually doesn't accomplish the same thing. All yours does is give the title of the article and the website. It doesn't give the date, it doesn't give the author (if there is one), and it doesn't give the access date. These are all important details for the citation. The date is important to know so we know how old or recent the source is, the author is important for the same reason the author of a book is important (can also help in validity), and the access date is important because there could be a change in information from the time you first accessed the source (so the access date tells us that the information being sourced is based on the time of that date, if there are any changes to the original source). Also, if we ever wanted to take these articles to WP:GA or even WP:FA, the citation format that you do would be one of the things reviewers would call out because it doesn't meet the requirements for that quality scale. I'm not saying we have to take any of these articles to GA or FA, but that's the quality we need to be striving for. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I hear you, but sometimes a man just wants to have a pizza...nobody has Wolfgang Puck cook for them every night. I agree that references are important, and I always try to tidy things up as much as I can, but there's also going overboard the other way as well. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: This isn't going overboard though. Going overboard would be to ask you to also archive these sources to ensure the original source lasts (that is actually a requirement of FA, but that's beside the point). -- JDC808 ♫ 00:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: I have to ask you, why is it so hard for you to just format the sources correctly? I'm tired of having to constantly fix these. The dropdown box does all the work for you, but for some reason, you just want to be stubborn on this and continue with your basic and informal format. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Please discuss your views about this article with the IP user on the article talk page. If you like, you could post a neutral request for additional comments at WT:PW. Aggressive comments in edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Both of you are engaged in an edit war and risk being blocked if this behavior continues. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for correcting this article. I tried to revert it multiple times last night but no one wanted to listen to me. Megppg99 ( talk) 03:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I operate in the spirit of WP:LEAD stating that you should "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." The same should go for the first paragraph.

Broadcasting arrangements in one country, in the first paragraph, feels like it's just being mentioned for the sake of being mentioned. The key points are that it was a pay-per-view and that it took place at Raymond James Stadium. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

This particular broadcasting arrangement is a major impact on the event. You have to take into consideration which country was affected; the one for which the company is based in. It's an American promotion producing a major American event, and it is the American viewers who this affected. This is in line with what you outlined for LEAD, although I've often times seen you take that way too liberally and only have a one-sentence lead paragraph. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thenagain I guess a large number of other major sports event articles emphasize broadcast outlets directly in the lead, although how it's being done here feels like a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE (I'm okay with "PPV and WWE Network event" because that is effectively a category of WWE live event rather than just the attribution of a broadcaster). ViperSnake151  Talk  02:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. I think we should talk about how to handle the 2020 Draft. If you want, we can open a RfC in the talk page.

I have some problems with the article, most of them with the "Free agents" section. 1, it focuses sometimes around events no related with the Draft itself. Many wrestlers are released, but months after the Draft. I don't see why Zelina Vega's release should be noted (one month after the Draft), Big Show's (4 months) or Billie Kay's (5 months and appearing on TV). 2, excesive detail. While it's important to include where the wrestlers were assigned, there is no point to include Martinez attacking Shirai, or Ryker joining Elias. Why Martinez is fine but not, Tamina's or Erik's first work on their brands? The worst is including everything about Big Show. Show being unhappy and leaving it's for the Big Show article, not for the Draft. Why do we include Big Show reasons for leaving and not Andrade's reasons? 3, WP:OR. Some of them doesn't look like being assigned. Big Show, Mickie James or Maryse are noted as "appearances", not as "being assigned". Maryse stills a SD member, according to WWE.com. 4, Many other wrestlers were released, like Peyton Royce, Tucker or Kalisto. Why do we note the releases for free agents, but no for other wrestlers?

My main problem is the inconsistency in the article itself. Some wrestlers have notes about their released, while others don't. Some wrestlers have noted about their work in the new brand, while others don't. I hope we can work together to fix this problems. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am Chocolate Bubu and I just recently joined Wikipedia. There are many aspects and topics of Wikipedia that I'm still learning about, such as referencing, quoting and basic Stuff etc)

However I bring forth an edit done by you on the WrestleMania Backlash article. In your edit summary, you wrote "sigh, some people just don't understand a lead section..."and I feel that is a blatant remark at me because I was unaware of what leads (whatever that is) are. I'm still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works and then there is you remarking at me. You don't expect to figure out how most of the things work on Wikipedia straight away (leads and other things). You could've have said something like "This content doesn't go in the lead" or "lead contains a summary of article's main points, this is useful" instead you have to remark at me and say "some people don't understand..." I didn't even know about leads. By the way, I removed that part about the event from the first paragraph because I found it was repeated in the background sub section and I thought that was redundant. Your behaviour and attitude to new Wikipedia users is pathetic.

Regards Chocolate Bubu Chocolate Bubu ( talk) 13:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Chocolate Bubu: Unless I were to have manually looked at your contributions, there is nothing to tell me that you are a new editor. The lead section is the first thing that you read in an article. That's why it's called the lead, because it's first. And yes, it's a summary of the article's main points. For a lot of casual readers, the lead section is the only thing they read. These articles are similar to research papers you would do in school. That remark was directed at you, but not only you. It was also directed at other editors, as there are experienced editors here who still don't know some of these things, and it gets a bit tiring having to repeat things. I'm sorry if you were offended, but don't take things like that personally. It can lead to uncivil comments like calling me pathetic. -- JDC808 ♫ 08:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi. Because it appears to by a copyvio from this site, which was mentioned in the template. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Onel5969: That is one of the many websites that are a copyvio of Wikipedia, not the other way. If you're going to tag an article for speedy deletion for copyvio, please make yourself aware of these kinds of websites before doing so. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

JDC808, I'll add it to my list, it wasn't on there yet. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, JDC808. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! - TNT ^💞 02:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Not trying to start an argument with you, but I just think we shouldn't assume that the Million $ Championship is "unsanctioned". That was then, this is now, and it would just be safer not to "ASS-U-ME" anything...that's all I'm saying.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: It was an unsanctioned championship then, it is still an unsanctioned championship now. There has been nothing said that it has magically become sanctioned now. There is no official title history for it on WWE.com, and LA Knight is not even credited for it on his WWE.com profile. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

It's not assuming. It's sticking with what's been established until something further is said that would prove otherwise. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Not really that big of a deal, so if you want to revert it, I won't fight it. Just wanted to tell you where I was coming from. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: That's the thing though, you almost always jump on these kind of things without validation/verification (like when a title has a one-off appearance on a show, you've automatically assumed it's become a title of that brand). The Million Dollar Championship was brought back, and you assumed it became sanctioned (and if you didn't, you removed mention of it being unsanctioned, which made it appear as if it is sanctioned), but it has never been sanctioned and nothing has yet been said that it is now sanctioned. -- JDC808 ♫ 01:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

And at the end of the day, it was no harm, no foul, and we all lived happily ever after. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

My edit was reverted, but on wwe.com, it said Chelsea Green was on NXT rather than Smackdown (this is the same with Mickie James, who was on Smackdown rather than Raw on wwe.com, current wrestler Jaxson Ryker, who was the same thing as James, and Kane, who was listed as a Smackdown wrestler than a free agent). Kurisumasen ( talk) 14:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Kurisumasen: WWE is not always the best at keeping their website up-to-date with those kind of changes. -- JDC808 ♫ 17:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Please Delete Two out of Three Falls match page because there are two pages so one is unnecessary. King Rudra 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ King Rudra: Can you link both pages for me please? -- JDC808 ♫ 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

How to link them King Rudra 03:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Two-out-of-three_falls_match&redirect=no Two-out-of-three falls match Another one is this Two out of Three Falls match Link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Two_out_of_Three_Falls_match&redirect=no King Rudra 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ King Rudra: They're just redirects to the actual page, so no need to delete (even if a deletion were necessary, I don't have the ability to delete articles). I did correct where they should be redirecting though. Also, for future reference, what you did for the linking works, but what I had meant was to use a Wikilink, so putting the brackets around, like this, [[Two out of three falls match]], which would look like this after you save, Two out of three falls match. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ohk King Rudra 05:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The reason the image was removed is because of vandalism. It was changed to Rey Mysterio from vandalism. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 ( talk) 01:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Okay, but why wasn't it added back? JDC808 ♫ 02:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I can't delete pages, that's why I moved the page to God of War Ragnarok without the :. There was a redirect there. I even put it for deletion. As a sysop on ptwiki with years of experience, I obviously know how to move a page (by the way, check this). Actually, maybe you are the one who doesn't know how to move pages. Thank you. Skyshifter ^talk 21:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Skyshifter: That's why you wait until someone who knows what they're doing can move it to the actual title with a colon. What I did was a round robin redirect so the actual name can be used. I hadn't finished cleaning it up so that "rag" page could be deleted (and it's now gone btw). I actually have page mover rights where I can move a page and not leave a redirect behind (thus deleting the old page once clean up is finished). JDC808 ♫ 21:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note that there's a very big difference between "I don't know" and "I can't". Anyway, I felt that your edit summary was a personal attack to me, if you didn't intend to do it, sorry for my message's tone. Maybe I shouldn't have moved the page, but I didn't do it because I didn't know what I was doing, it was because I just couldn't do it. That's what I wanted you to understand. Have a nice day. Skyshifter ^talk 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Skyshifter: Wasn't intended as a personal attack. Sorry if it came off that way. Was just a general statement as I've seen this kind of thing happens a few times. Apology accepted. For future reference, if you're unable to make a page move, you can request it at WP:RMT. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Please update the Summary of Raw and SmackDown Women's Championships King Rudra 02:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm KyleJoan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mandy Rose, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KyleJoan ^talk 01:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Can you quote the sources which supported this material prior to your inclusion of the additional sources? Where are you getting the quotes about her (unsourced) personas (e.g., "Golden Goddess" and "sexy badass") from? Which source says she began pursuit for the NXT Women's Championship? KyleJoan ^talk 01:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I tried to explain in the notes when I edited the page, but it didn’t come out right. The reason the numbers weren’t included for the In Your House ppv’s on the List of WWE Pay-Pay-Per Views page is because those PPVs never had numbers to begin with. This was discussed years ago. If you go back and watch those old IYH ppvs you’ll see that nowhere on the show are there numbers mentioned. That was something that was retroactively added later on, and in some cases, years later. We list the PPV’s by the names they went by in the advertising leading up to the event and on the day of the event. Any retroactive changes that WWE decides to make is after the fact. OldSkool01 ( talk) 07:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ OldSkool01: I tried searching for that discussion on the talk page (and the previous archives before the merger of that page) and couldn't find that discussion. What you say about the numbering doesn't quite seem right, as when looking at each one's respective articles, the images used (which are from their respective VHS copies) include numbers. What is missing on those VHS covers, however, are the subtitles that were retroactively added. Also, saying "they didn't say the numbers during the broadcast" isn't a strong argument, because, for example, with recent WrestleMania events, they don't say the number during the broadcast or in their own advertising. Do we have more definitive sources (like magazines or news articles) from that time that do not include numbers for these earlier events? -- JDC808 ♫ 07:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It’s been years since this was talked about. I don’t even remember which page it was on. The numbered VHS tapes were only the UK releases. The US releases didn’t have numbers. But again, those VHS tapes came out a month or so after the fact. When I get home from work I’ll have more time to dive into this, I’ll send you links to the actual ppv posters and stuff. OldSkool01 ( talk) 20:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Been doing google image searches and pretty much all of the original In Your House ppv posters can be found, the ones that were shown in WWF Magazine to promote the events. None of them used numbers. Here’s a link to a site that reviews all the In Your House shows. http://oswreview.com/history/wwf-in-your-house-results/ You can see most of the original ppv posters there, but some of them use the UK Silver Vision VHS covers.

The reason the UK releases had numbers on them and the US releases didn’t is because Coliseum Video in the US used their own titles for their tapes. For example, In Your House July 1995 was released by Coliseum Video as “Terminators ‘95”, In Your House: Badd Blood was released as “Rampage ‘97”, In Your House: Good Friends, Better Enemies was released as “Mega Matches ‘96”, and so on. Silver Vision in the UK didn’t do that, plus the first 6 IYH events didn’t have subtitles. They were all just called simply “In Your House”. So to make it easy to remember which one is which, they just added numbers to the tapes when they were released on video a month or so after the PPV, starting with the 2nd IYH. And that’s where the numbers came from. The numbers were never mentioned on television at all in the weeks leading up to the PPVs, nor were they ever used on the actual PPVs themselves. Just on the UK releases. Years later, retroactively, it became easier to just refer to them by the numbers.

As for WrestleManias not using numbers, every single WrestleMania, except for 1 and 16 used numbers in one form or another. Either on T-shirts, magazines or on WWE’s websites leading up to the events. Even though they haven’t mentioned the numbers on the actual PPVs in recent years, they’ve still sold plenty of merchandise on WWEShop.com every year using either the regular numbers or the roman numerals, and they’ve also used it on WWE.com to promote the upcoming Manias. That’s not the case with the IYH ppvs. Nowhere was there any use of numbers other than the UK VHS tapes that came out after the fact. OldSkool01 ( talk) 03:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

What is NXT now in the "2.0" era - third brand (not even pretending anymore), developmental (which is fairly obvious) or in some nebulous purgatory stuck in between? Not being argumentative, but it just looked clear what the "2.0" mission statement was. When NXT first moved to USA the mission statement there was clear - be the third brand and beat AEW. That didn't work, hence the reboot. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

But yet it's still on USA and still running PPVs instead of only Network events. JDC808 ♫ 04:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Contracts are a hard thing to get out of, and you gotta fulfill the obligations. WWE doesn't even give lip service to NXT as a 3rd brand anymore (evidenced by no long counting Charlotte's NXT Titles in her total). I know in the past I was a supporter of WWE calling NXT the 3rd brand, because that's how they were promoting it (it's their brand, they can call it whatever they want), but it's obvious now the reverse is true (understand USA and PPV, and they have to hold up their end of the deal, but just saying...) Vjmlhds (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

At WrestleMania 30 the match between Undertaker and Brock Lesnar. Micheal Cole acknowledge Lesner as former IWGP Champion so we can confirm that Lesner is 10 time World champion. King Rudra 16:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed your edit here [11], referring to my more explanatory lead as 'fluff.' I am just going to say that if I weren't a longtime wrestling fan and I was just viewing that article as someone who had never heard of the Hall of Fame, I wouldn't know what the hell a hall of fame is based on your introduction. If "fluff" refers to better explanation, maybe Wikipedia ought to encourage 'fluff.' Again, I am not here to argue, edit war, or go back and forth. You seem to feel passionately about your edit, so keep it that way, no skin off my back. Was just trying to help understandability. Good day! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@JudgeJudyCourthouse25 to further explain. Everyone knows what a hall of fame is, regardless if it's professional wrestling, baseball, basketball, etc. You basically overexplained it, and that type of explanation is better suited for the main WWE Hall of Fame article. Secondly, you used a lot of peacock words (see MOS:PUFFERY) which is mostly where the "fluff" accusation comes in. JDC808 ♫ 22:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Your comment: "Everyone knows what a hall of fame is, regardless if it's professional wrestling, baseball, basketball, etc."

My response: Old questions posted to the website Quora over years past as follows: [12], [13], [14], etc.

Your comment: You basically overexplained it, and that type of explanation is better suited for the main WWE Hall of Fame article.

My response: This is actually the only thing you said that made any sense to me.

You wrote "Secondly, you used a lot of peacock words (see MOS:PUFFERY) which is mostly where the "fluff" accusation comes in."

My response: Actually the opening paragraph for that Wikipedia "puffery" page you sent me even states in its own opening paragraph that the rules offered on that page should NOT be rigidly enforced on editors. My guess is that's probably because it gets into subjective territory as to what's puffery and what's not; what might be 'huff' 'puff' 'rough' 'tough' might be 'sugar and spice and everything nice' to another person. What is to one editor might not be the same to another editor. The opening paragraph of that "puffery" page also states that if material is sourced that it's perfectly fine to add such description. There are actually multiple sources in that article suggesting the Undertaker as above and beyond a "renowned". The first source used by the editor that put that article there reads and I quote "In an extraordinary career that spanned three decades, The Undertaker loomed over the WWE landscape like a menacing shadow, spelling out doom for those who dared cross him. Imbued with seemingly mystical abilities and preternatural in-ring skill, the legendary Phenom operated on his own level." Again, just some future constructive advice for you that may help you avoid edit warring so much, which I can see has been apart of your past. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 01:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on AEW Women's World Championship. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan ^talk 00:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@KyleJoan except for the fact I was restoring the article to before the other editor came along and said it should be that name per MOS:DOCTOR, which was false. That is her ring name as per AEW's website. I even posted to that editor's talk page after my initial revert to inform them of this, but they still changed it back, still trying to claim MOS:DOCTOR. Then you came to the article to change it as well claiming the source says otherwise despite the official title history saying that's her ring name. JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no attempt by anyone involved to discuss this on the article talk page. Placing justifications in edit summaries while reverting other editors is edit warring. Everyone involved seems to be participating in an edit war. Everyone needs to take it to the article talk page. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GaryColemanFan: that is somewhat false. While it was not on the article's talk page, discussion was initiated here. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected. You certainly did the right thing in initiating a discussion with the other user. At this point, I would recommend a centralized discussion on the article talk page, with a neutral notification to WP:PW. For what it's worth, I don't watch wrestling, but I did a quick search. The first reliable source I found was TSN [15], which refers to her as Dr. Britt Baker, DMD. She is listed on the AEW roster page as Britt Baker, DMD, and on the women's world championship listing (on the AEW site) as Dr. Britt Baker, DMD. Her Twitter user name is Dr. Britt Baker, DMD. Based on these results, it seems like your version makes sense, but perhaps a wider discussion could make a conclusive decision. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I get it, it's been said already, but it's still important to mention it. For the people who already know, it'll be a good reminder and plus it's small bullet point or whatever. And for the new people, it'll be a cool little fun fact to add. Detail matters here. ChallengeCick ( talk) 03:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi there fellow Wikipedian. I just found out that it is your birthday today. I would like to wish you "Happy Birthday". Chocolate Bubu ( talk) 15:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@Chocolate Bubu thank you JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Clash at the Castle logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. ( t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ( Purge) Hi JDC808, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, ( t · c) buidhe 22:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:20220608 231806.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:AEW-TBS-Championship.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on WWE Clash at the Castle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sionk ( talk) 00:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, on notability and verification, thankyou. As you point out yourself, the information about WWE Clash at the Castle is from the WWE website, a primary source. I can only see an independent news source which confirms the announcement of the name of the event. The remaining secondary sources, so far, are about prior events and not Clash at the Castle. Therefore the 'primary sources' tag is entirely justified at the moment. Wikipedia isn't a WWE fan site.

To be frank, the entire article seems WP:TOOSOON and the only thing preventing me from nominating it for AfD is the prospect of (a) WWE fans piling on to oppose the AfD (2) it's only a couple of weeks before the event, the AfD is likely to be extended, by the time I suspect we might get some form of reliable secondary coverage about the event (when it takes place). Sionk ( talk) 12:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@Sionk "the remaining secondary sources, so far, are about prior events". They're "about prior events" because those are what built the "Storylines" for this event and are what confirmed the matches that are happening at this event, hence why it's the "Storylines" section (which for some reason you tried removing in one of your past edits). Also, I said please familiarize yourself with the topic (as in professional wrestling event articles), as you seem to not understand how these pages are to be written, which are based on project consensus that are based on Wikipedia's policies (that's not saying that all professional wrestling event pages on Wikipedia are perfect, quite a lot need cleaning up, most of which are non-WWE ones). And even if you tried nominating this for AfD due to TOOSOON, it would fail (as in it wouldn't be deleted) because although we might not have more secondary sources that confirm the event on the page at time of this post, they do exist and could be easily added (EDIT: I've since added a few more). JDC808 ♫ 00:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fascinating. Please point me in the direction of guidance which says WWE articles are exempt from WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:OR and I'll certainly try and educate myself. This is all news to me. Sionk ( talk) 12:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@Sionk never said they were exempt. JDC808 ♫ 12:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There's some discussion of the setup for the Riddle vs. Rollins match here: [16]. I don't follow WWE, so I don't know the storyline, but the source might help to expand the article. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@GaryColemanFan yeah, I noticed that the article was lacking their storyline (and surprised that other editors hadn't added it yet). Was gonna look into getting it added soon, but I'll check that first. JDC808 ♫ 22:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:NXT 2022 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Day 1 logo 2022.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

We should have move list of WWE Women's tag team champions because page is to much long King Rudra 05:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Survivor Series WarGames 2022 logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Day 1 logo 2022.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Not trying to give you a hard time, but on this issue, you are wrong.

With both Roman Reigns and the Usos, they defend both sets of titles at the same time. WWE + Universal = Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, and Raw Tag Team + SD Tag Team = Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship.

This is the same situation like we had in 2009-10 when Raw's World Tag Team Championship and SD's WWE Tag Team Championship were defended jointly as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. The titles retained their individual lineages, but were defended together across both brands (and back then also on ECW)

So to say at this time the titles belong to a particular brand would be incorrect.

Now down the road if/when we get separate champions again, that would be different, but as long as both world titles and both tag titles are defended jointly, they are dual branded.

Don't be so hung up on the names of the titles....what we have here is the same situation we had in 2009-10, so there is a precedent. Vjmlhds 13:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Indulge me as we take a trip in the wayback machine to show you how we handled the situation in 2009 when we had the exact same situation. How is this different than what we have now, other than the names of the titles? Vjmlhds (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Except no, you are wrong. Like I have said in the past, anytime you see a title pop up on a show/brand, you automatically assume it's now an official title of that show/brand. This isn't really any different. You're seeing the title on the show and assuming that it's automatically the title of that show. The ONLY reason you see that right now is because they hold both sets of championships. Regardless of how you want to try and spin it, the titles are NOT unified, thus the Raw Tag Team Championship, for example, is NOT a title of the SmackDown brand, etc. The edits I put adequately describe the situation: they are the title of such and such brand but because the titles are held by the same champion(s), they are co-defended.

And in regard to how this is different from the past. Well, it's the past. Just because it was done that way, over 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's the correct solution to what we have now (let's not forget, with some exceptions, the project has been in horrendous shape up until the last few years, so we should tread lightly on how things were done in the past). Another big difference though, they ended up actually unifying the titles. It's already been reported multiple times that Triple H wants to split them up, but Vince left him in a predicament where he just has to see this through until he can find the right time to do it. -- JDC808 ♫ 13:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry...I'm not wrong on this one. 2009 and today are exactly the same - 2 sets of titles with individual lineages being jointly defended under an umbrella name. There is ZERO difference between then and now other than the names of the titles, which seems to be the thing you are so hung up on. Aa far as HHH wanting to have separate champions, that's all well and good, but it's gotta happen first, then we can go from there, but as it stand right now, the Bloodline has ALL the belts, which are defended jointly across ALL the shows, therefore they are dual branded until such time they are not. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds it's not the same because again, they actually unified the titles back then. If you want to change this so badly, let's bring this up to the project and get more input. JDC808 ♫ 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

When WWE did the deal in April 2009, both titles remained active until August 2010, when WWE merely deactivated the World Tag Team Championship in favor of the WWE (now Raw) Tag Team Titles. So the titles never were unified. They were defended jointly for about a year and a half before one of them was simply abandoned. Again, we have the same situation - jointly defended titles. It's not a matter of me "wanting to change it", it's more a matter of you wanting to cling on to what was and not acknowledging what is. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds I have acknowledged what is, hence the description at the end of the intro paragraph. What I'm not trying to claim is that the Raw title is a SmackDown title and vice versa. And that description has been there since this whole double champion bit began earlier this year for both Reigns and Usos, just with some copy-editing done to it. But again, it should be brought to the project to get more opinions. JDC808 ♫ 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I never said anything was a Raw title...you are putting words in my mouth. The WWE and Universal Titles are defended jointly as the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, likewise the Raw and SD Tag straps as the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship. When they are defended jointly, they are dual branded meaning defended across all main roster shows, not just specific ones. It just appears to me you are stubbornly looking for purity with this attitude of "X Title belongs on X brand, period." - completely disregarding the fact that for going on 8 months now they've been defended jointly on both brands. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds you're saying they're dual branded, i.e., you are saying they are both a Raw and SmackDown title. That's what I meant in my last post. But you are completely ignoring the fact that there is a description at the end of the intro paragraph that explains the situation (which I originally added, mind you). You want to make this change, get a consensus from the project. JDC808 ♫ 06:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I note you reverted my edits on varius wrestling articles and that you have now created Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, however this is marked as a disambiguation page but is not formatted as a dab.— Rod ^talk 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@Rodw that was created before you made the edits, and although there may be a misformat (made mention of that in my edit summary there), what you changed the link to was incorrect. The "Undisputed WWE Universal Championship" refers to two championships held together, not the single one that you linked it to. JDC808 ♫ 08:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Undisputed WWE Universal Champion shows as a dab page because it includes the template: {{disambiguation}}. If linking to the dab page is best then the link should be [[Undisputed WWE Universal Championship (disambiguation)|Undisputed WWE Universal Championship]] per WP:INTDAB. Wikipedia:Disambiguation gives hints and tips for formatting.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:NXT Deadline.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hoping that you could use already both of these 3 sources to the article Kratos (God of War) https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/11/11/kratos-god-of-war-evolution-story/ https://www.gameinformer.com/2022/12/08/kratos-voice-actor-says-he-originally-quit-when-he-learned-someone-else-was-directing https://kotaku.com/god-of-war-christopher-judge-the-game-awards-2022-1849872823. Thank you! 2001:4455:688:5F00:CCCA:9CEE:18BF:2E9D ( talk) 02:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@2001:4455:688:5F00:CCCA:9CEE:18BF:2E9D thanks, I'll read over them and see what could be added JDC808 ♫ 02:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Eh, you actually forgotten it. 2001:4455:688:5F00:25FC:91E2:7A6F:EC23 ( talk) 11:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@2001:4455:688:5F00:25FC:91E2:7A6F:EC23 sorry, got a little busy elsewhere and did in fact forget. I actually just had to make some revisions to the article. That Washington Post reference will take just a bit to dissect because it's kind of a long read with a lot of info. JDC808 ♫ 02:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, JDC808. I recently edited the article WrestleMania 38, and mentioned that this was Sasha Banks' final PPV match, as well as her recent debut appearance for New Japan Pro-Wrestling (NJPW). Please take a look at what I did and let me know if it needs improvement. Thank you. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 16:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars I did some copy/editing to it. JDC808 ♫ 13:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not understanding why you're removing the breaks between the pics.

They're there so the pics line up in a nice neat column. The way you had it makes the chart look sloppy to be frank.

They're not "odd breaks"...it's the way we've always had pics of teams in charts like this (WWE, AEW, Impact, NWA, NJPW, whatever else) when we don't have a collective team pic.

There is a method to the madness - they're not there just for the heck of it. Vjmlhds 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Vjmlhds: On my end, the breaks were adding an actual full space between the pics, and they were still lined up neatly in a column without the added breaks. -- JDC808 ♫ 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

It all depends on the size of the screen..on wider screens, without the breaks, the pics don't line up, and wind up all scattershot. For smaller/narrower screens, you may not need the breaks, but on bigger/wider screens you do. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds while I have you, there are a couple of concerns.

One, the use of dashes. You often use the wrong kind of dash. There are three kinds. A regular hyphen, an en-dash, and an em-dash ( - – —). The hyphen goes between words to connect them (e.g., longest-reigning). The en-dash is used for number ranges (e.g., 1–10). The em-dash is used similarly to parenthesis—kinda like this. It's this last one that's usually the issue. You always use a regular hyphen when it should be the em-dash and with a few exceptions, there shouldn't be a space between the words and the em-dash. If you're on mobile, if you long press on the hyphen, it brings up the three different dashes. If you're editing on PC, at the bottom of the text box has the three different dashes to select.

The other issue is something I've tried talking to you about in the past, and that is the formatting of sources. Can you please stop being stubborn and just format them correctly? If we're editing the same article, I'm always having to fix the source formatting on the ones you added, and it gets tiring when you could just do it correctly but you won't. It's really not hard. I'll even give you the template you can copy/paste.

<ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |date= |last= |first= |work= |access-date= }}</ref>

Note, for a source without a proper author, like WWE which is often "WWE.com Staff", use "author" instead of the "last and first" parameters.

Conversely, if editing on PC, there's a drop down box where you just fill in the info and it will auto-format it for you.

One other thing, please watch out for overlinking. I've seen you do this a few times. For example, for the AEW champions page, you never have to link Dynamite or Rampage in the prose. They're already linked in the little overview section. The only events that need to be linked are special episodes, individual Battle of the Belts episodes, and PPVs. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, JDC808. It's me again. Back in mid-December 2022, I added the "Event" section for the article NXT Deadline. I did so because the wikipedia pages for NXT's major events that occurred after NXT TakeOver 36 were missing that section, and even if they did, the summaries were poorly written. For example, the articles NXT WarGames (2021), NXT: New Year's Evil (2022), and NXT Vengeance Day (2022) used to have an "Event" section, but the summaries for the matches that were contested at those events were all copied and pasted from Bleacher Report and had to be deleted. Also, even if those articles had an "Aftermath" section, it excluded the storylines that continued from that event. So, earlier this month, I improved the wikipedia page for NXT WarGames (2021) by adding the storylines for the men's and women's WarGames matches, the "Event" section, and an addition to the "Aftermath" section that included the storylines that continued on from that event. Those additions were the best that I could do. Please take a look at that article if you have the time and let me know what you think. Thank you. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars I'll have a look here in the next day or so. JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for trimming down the article. I'll try to keep the summaries for the matches just the right amount. Good night. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 02:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars yeah, some match summaries might require a longer description, but we want to try to keep it around where we're just mentioning the highlights of the match and of course how it ended. Otherwise it just gets too long and too many details. JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, it's me again. Yesterday, random IP accounts just removed Vince McMahon booking in the lead paragraph for the article WrestleMania 39 after their block expired. Me and User:StrangerMan123 undid those edits, and they have been blocked for 1 week now. Also, back when I created this account in early December 2022, I was somewhat of an inexperienced user. So, when I decided to add or make additions to an "Aftermath" section for some wrestling event articles, I honestly didn't know that it was for those involved in that event, and that it shouldn't mention new feuds. Now, I have improved over the coming weeks, and whenever I see one of those articles in which its "Aftermath" section is missing citations in regards to the storylines that continued on from that event (like NXT TakeOver: WarGames (2020), NXT TakeOver: Vengeance Day, WrestleMania XXVI, and Payback (2013)), I add those citations. Plus, I archive whatever citations I can, like in the article Elimination Chamber (2023), I archived the ER (Extreme Rules) and CJ (Crown Jewel) citations. Ready for Elimination Chamber in one week? I want Sami Zayn to defeat Roman Reigns for the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, but I feel like Reigns vs. Cody Rhodes is the highly-anticipated match for WrestleMania. What do you think? GodofDemonwars ( talk) 19:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars Hey, I left a comment at the WrestleMania 39 talk page as well. That editor is just another reason I wish Wikipedia required that everyone creates an account to edit. Great job on the improvements, and really great job on archiving sources. That technically should always be done to ensure we always have access to the original source (I actually need to do that on another article I work on lol). JDC808 ♫ 21:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

So, about the run-on sentences, back in November 2022, a random user named User:Sjincterphizz did a similar thing to the article Hell in a Cell (2019) that even I did at the article WrestleMania 34. (I did some c/e at that article as well). GodofDemonwars ( talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars yeah, for some reason, some editors like to do a big run-on sentence for the lead like that and I'm not sure if they just don't know that they're doing that or if they're purposely doing that as like a minor form of silly vandalism. That's something to keep an eye on and try to fix if you see it. There are also some articles that only have a one-sentence lead paragraph, like the sentence will be formatted correctly, but we really shouldn't have a one-sentence lead paragraph (I've seen that most often on articles about a wrestler). JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, I undid 2 edits from Random IP addresses at the article Royal Rumble (2023). They told premature information, like Cody Rhodes winning the men's Royal Rumble match, Nikki Bella winning the women's, Bray Wyatt defeating LA Knight, Alexa Bliss defeating Bianca Belair, and Roman Reigns defeating Kevin Owens. I told them that their edits made no sense and told them to wait until after the event is finished, and then they can add the results. I think that article needs to be semi-protected once again. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 14:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars that's basically just vandalism that just needs reverted without any explanation beyond saying you're reverting vandalism by the IP (and you could also say reverting per WP:CRYSTALBALL). As for page protection, that's something that has to be requested to an admin if the vandalism persists (that's also one of those things where I just wish Wikipedia required everyone to create a free account, it would make some things easier to deal with). I don't have a link right off for requesting page protection, but can find it if you want it. JDC808 ♫ 01:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. Can't wait to see who will win the men's and women's Royal Rumble matches this Saturday. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 01:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars yeah I'm excited for it, especially as it's hard to predict, especially the men's. JDC808 ♫ 01:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, I guess I learned my lessons now. By the way, I also added to a reception section for the articles Royal Rumble (2022), Survivor Series WarGames, Elimination Chamber (2023), and in the article Royal Rumble (2022), I also expanded its Aftermath section. I hope I did well. Also, I made significant improvements to the article WrestleMania 37 by adding the storylines for the remaining matches contested at the event, and why this was Billie Kay and Samoa Joe's final WWE appearance. Please check that article out if you have time and let me know what you think. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 00:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, JDC808. I really enjoyed watching the previous night's Royal Rumble. My predictions of Cody Rhodes and Rhea Ripley winning their respective Royal Rumble matches were correct. I can't believe I actually contributed to that article, along with more Wiki users. I am very hyped for WrestleMania 39 in Inglewood, California. How about you? GodofDemonwars ( talk) 16:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ GodofDemonwars: It was an interesting Rumble and the right people won. Some say it was too predictable, but if it's good, that's not really an issue lol. I am interested to see what happens with Sami Zayn and The Bloodline heading towards Elimination Chamber and WrestleMania 39. Also curious if they'll decide to split the world championships before WrestleMania so that Cody would only challenge for one instead of both together as the undisputed title. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Speaking of WM 39, a rumored and expected match looks to be Usos vs KO/Zayn for the Undisputed Tag Team Titles, which is why they shouldn't be separated in the charts quite yet. I know the Usos have defended each title individually recently, but that doesn't mean that it's always gonna be that way - especially if the WM 39 pieces fall into place as expected, so please hold off on separating the titles until at least WM 39, then we'll see what happens from there. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds well they've been defending them separately now and you're going off of speculation, so they should still be separated until something changes JDC808 ♫ 05:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Should the expected Usos-KO/Zayn match go down, then they go back, as these recent separate defenses will have proven to be one-offs. Honestly, the only reason for the separate defenses was due to Raw XXX for the Raw titles, and doing an SD title defense as a make-good to even it out. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds Triple H already confirmed that going forward, they'll be defended separately. "the only reason"? You got proof on that? They could have easily just done both as the undisputed titles there. JDC808 ♫ 18:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Show me the source about HHH and I'll call it a day. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds "The idea right now on the tag team front is that there are two sets of belts. The Usos are champions, but the Raw and Smackdown belts are different. This is a new Paul Levesque move and it does allow the Usos to lose one set of belts and keep the other. It was explained to me that the hope is it makes fans think it’s more likely somebody beats them for one set of belts" JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It's a day (though it doesn't mean it can't go back should circumstances dictate). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, it's me again. I undid two revisions from random IP addresses at the article WrestleMania 39. They complained about this being the first WrestleMania under Paul "Triple H" Levesque's control, but not having a source in the lead paragraph. I undid that revision. The second one I did is one that very frequently happens now - they put the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship match as " Roman Reigns (with Paul Heyman) or Sami Zayn (c) vs. Cody Rhodes". I deleted the bolded part above because the champion AS OF NOW is Reigns, so the match table says "Card subject to change." A few minutes later, User:StrangerMan123 put a note saying this: "Please do not add Sami Zayn here, the current champion is Roman Reigns. If Zayn ends up winning the championships at Elimination Chamber, we change it here." Check the revision history for the article WrestleMania 39 if you have the time, and let me know what you think.

Also, I recently improved the article SummerSlam (2022) by adding the storyline for the No Disqualification tag team match. Can you please check that article out again if you have the time? That would be nice. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, I only put this note because if not the random ips will continue to put Sami Zayn there, below it is already written: card subject to change, if Zayn wins, we change the name. Unfortunately i don't think he will win, but i'm not lying that I'm rooting for Sami haha. Also, User:GodofDemonwars, i'd like to really say thank you for the recent edits you've made, putting in the storylines that weren't in some articles, I really appreciate that. Same to JDC808, who is also a big editor around here, thanks for the edits. I know we had disagreements once, wich I admit you were right, and I ended up being childish to you, but i already apologized and i apologize again for that, and once again thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia. StrangerMan123 ( talk) 20:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

So, Elimination Chamber is officially in the books, and we are on our way to WrestleMania 39 on April 1-2. I believe not only will Rhea Ripley vs. Asuka be awesome, we may also have The Usos defending the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship against Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn at the event. What do you think about it? GodofDemonwars ( talk) 04:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars that's what's been speculated and seems likely now. I'm just wondering if it will be for both tag belts, or just one set. JDC808 ♫ 04:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds that doesn't confirm anything. It's literally just speculation. JDC808 ♫ 04:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Once WWE officially announces the match - and specifically say it's for the Undisputed Tag Team Titles - can we please put this to bed, because truthfully, I think you're clinging on to these one-off defenses as gospel (yeah, I know, HHH said.... but things change) Vjmlhds (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds nothing is official until it's official, and I think you're clinging on too much to the idea that these separate defenses are one-off, and honestly, even if it is for both at WrestleMania, I think that in itself will be a one-off. JDC808 ♫ 05:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Not to be that guy, but if they go back to defending both titles, that isn't the one-off, as that's what they have been doing all year. The separate defenses will have been proven to be the one-offs, as it will be literally breaking from what was the norm one time. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds You didn't understand what I was saying there. What I meant was while the WrestleMania match might be for both, after WrestleMania, they'll probably go back to separate defenses. JDC808 ♫ 05:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's just take a deep breath here. For most of the last year, the belts have been defended jointly, then recently they were defended separately one time, and now it's 99% sure they'll be defended jointly at WM 39. What happens after words? We'll get there when we get there. Assuming WM 39 falls into place, they should be listed together as has been the case for nearly a year, Once WM 39 passes, we'll take it as it comes, sound like a plan? Vjmlhds (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I archive whatever citations I can at the WrestleMania 39 wiki article. Also, User:Vjmlhds, you will be impressed at what I did at the articles WWE Clash at the Castle and Royal Rumble (2023). Check those improvements out for yourself. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 01:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars first off, I've said it before but I'll say it again, thank you for archiving the sources. I find it to be a tedious task but it is one that needs done. Just a note, I've noticed you putting "c/e" in your edit summaries when you archive the sources. If all you're doing is archiving the sources, then your edit summary should be "archived sources" or "archived citations". "c/e" (which means copy-edit) means that you made general fixes or improvements to the prose (like changed some words, or maybe reworded a sentence for better clarity, or something along those lines). JDC808 ♫ 02:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 10:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

So, WrestleMania 39 is officially in the books, and I wonder who Roman Reigns will lose the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship to. I hope his feud with Cody Rhodes continues. By the way, the storyline involving The Bloodline's feud with Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn is one of the best in recent memory. Zayn betraying Reigns at the Royal Rumble was universally praised, and at the article Royal Rumble (2023), I had to add more news articles regarding how awesome it was. I also think Owens and Zayn will continue their feud with The Bloodline. Ready for Backlash? GodofDemonwars ( talk) 00:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I was holding off on creating the article of the newly announced Backlash event, taking place in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Can you create it when you have the time? GodofDemonwars ( talk) 16:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

With the recent announcement of The Usos vs. Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn for the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship at WrestleMania 39, I just modified the Aftermath section for the articles Survivor Series WarGames, Royal Rumble (2023), and Elimination Chamber (2023). Let me know what you think. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 01:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1143690017 looks like its him again, using different ips to edit. 2001:4455:6CD:CC00:70B5:4141:2618:40D3 ( talk) 11:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@2001:4455:6CD:CC00:70B5:4141:2618:40D3 thanks for the heads up JDC808 ♫ 12:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. About this, I think the current format is wrong. The parameter is "past_names" and the label, "other names", we should include past names of the titles, not the current ones. The International is already at the top of the infobox. Also, the template explains [17] past name is for "Past names of the title"-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree I guess technically you're right. Most articles have included the current name there as well, I believe mainly to show the timeline up to the current (which admittedly is nice to see). I have always found it odd that the template says "past names" but it displays as "other names". JDC808 ♫ 00:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Backlash logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, User:StrangerMan123 keeps modifying the access dates in the citations to Wikipedia's time instead of your time. By the way, I want you to take a look at what he and myself did at the articles NXT Roadblock (2023) and NXT Stand & Deliver (2023). GodofDemonwars ( talk) 01:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:SummerSlam logo as of 2022.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You show that you know nothing about language. Tony (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@Tony1 interesting take. Maybe try some civility next time. JDC808 ♫ 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Next time [breathe in for comma] I will take that advice. Tony (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article God of War Ragnarök you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 213.121.179.210 -- 213.121.179.210 ( talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I just modified the articles Battleground (2013) and Battleground (2017) following the event's revival for WWE's developmental brand, NXT, which told information about the recently announced 2023 event. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 22:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:SummerSlam 2023 logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@Gerda Arendt wow, it does not feel like it's been that long lol JDC808 ♫ 06:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

So, we honestly don't know if the new World Heavyweight Championship is the same as the old one. I also modified the article TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2013), the last PPV to feature the title, with more improvements. Time will tell. I also modified all WrestleMania articles from 2012 to present, making sure the wwe.com URLs don't have numbers at the end, as well as making sure the dates those events were announced are there. Finally, I modified the article Night of Champions (2015), mentioning that this was the final Night of Champions held before the reintroduction of the brand extension in July 2016 (something you missed). If you see this, you will be impressed at my improvements.... GodofDemonwars ( talk) 01:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars they should have just made it more simple by just stripping Reigns of the WWE Championship (and the new belt could have just been a new design of it). It does make me wonder if they'll now truly unify Reigns' titles and which one will actually be retired (hopefully not the WWE Championship but I fear that may be the case). JDC808 ♫ 01:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Whc big gold belt return سپهر 301 ( talk) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

So, recently, Onel5969 just made the article Undisputed WWE Universal Championship a disambiguation. Can you please solve this problem, just like OldSkool01 is trying to do, if you have the time? GodofDemonwars ( talk) 12:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The problem with the page is that it was wholly uncited. Quite frankly, if these are two separate titles, then there should be two articles, one for each, providing there is enough in-depth coverage of each to show they pass GNG. Else, they might be included in other pages as a section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Just added the citations for that article. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 12:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m a little confused as to what exactly the argument is here. Is Onel5969 saying that the Undisputed title is actually just one championship and not 2 seperate championships? Because if that’s what the argument is then that’s wrong. The Undisputed title is not 1 single championship. It’s 2 titles being held at the same time. Correct me if I’m wrong about what the argument is. OldSkool01 ( talk) 12:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@OldSkool01 based on their response, I feel as if they are confused themselves and just don't understand the situation. JDC808 ♫ 12:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@Onel5969 there already are two articles (the ones linked at Undisputed WWE Universal Championship which you can see are fully fleshed out articles). JDC808 ♫ 12:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

That's what I thought. Then the disambiguation page is correct. So I'm not sure what the issue is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@Onel5969 The disambiguation is correct but the issue was you were changing the link to redirect to WWE Universal Championship, which was incorrect. JDC808 ♫ 12:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@GodofDemonwars It was always supposed to be a disambiguation that briefly said that the undisputed championship means both of the championships. More info just got added over time where it kind of became a mini-article which wasn't really the intent. I actually have a solution I thought about recently that will eliminate this disambiguation/mini-article I just haven't gotten around to doing it. Well, I've sorta started it, but basically creating a subsection at World championships in WWE that would explain what the undisputed championship is. The info is actually already all there, but I want to rework the whole History section there to make it work better. JDC808 ♫ 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I have nominated CMLL World Heavyweight Championship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@Hog Farm sorry for late reply, I'll try to take a look at it here in the next day or two JDC808 ♫ 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

There's been another editor at work too, so I think the main thing that's left is determining if any of the post-2017 title changes need a tournament summary. Hog Farm _Talk 12:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@Hog Farm I'm seeing a couple of other issues on an initial read. One glaring issue is who is the current champion? It's mentioned four places in the article but only two of them match. I assume the two that match are correct but I can't say for certain without doing further research. If I have some extra time tomorrow, I'll try to do some editing to fix up some issues that I see. JDC808 ♫ 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Please note there's no need to break with naming conventions to specify that the upcoming All In is an AEW show - that's already mentioned in the lead. They're ultimately the same series of shows and can retain the same naming convention of every other pro wrestling PPV article. Furthermore your change to the 2018 show has over-complicated the name in a way that contravenes WP:NC (it also required admin intervention to fix). Simpler titles are better when there's unlikely to be confusion between two different articles (and, in this case, clarity is given by the year in parenthesis). Cheers. — Czello ^{( music)} 09:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@Czello The way I see it was that it was a similar case to WCW Halloween Havoc and NXT Halloween Havoc. Two different promotions but same series yet we identify the NXT ones with NXT (and we actually put NXT in all of their events' titles). The original All In was originally titled All In (professional wrestling event). The year needed to be added because of the 2023 event but "professional wrestling event" was left on just to identify the fact that it was not an AEW event. As to it mentioned in the lead, you don't see the lead until after you click on the article (unless you're on mobile where you get to see the short description before opening an article). Also, what admin intervention was needed? It showed that you made the moves without any admin intervention. If anything, all you would have needed was someone with page mover rights (which you and I both have). JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The original naming of All In made sense at the time, but as you say the addition of the new show changed that; consequently the simplest solution is adding the year. However, you do raise a good point re: WCW vs NXT; it does appear that there's an inconsistency in naming where NXT is concerned. Perhaps we should raise this with the wider WikiProject to decide a more consistent MOS. I'll start a thread there later today. As for the admin intervention, it was required to speedy delete the "All In (2018)" redirect, leaving way for a page move. Unfortunately a regular move wouldn't work (I even have page mover rights and it wouldn't let me). No worries, though, let's speak with the wider WikiProject and see if we can get consistency around PPVs under different banners. — Czello ^{( music)} 08:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@Czello in regards to the redirect, that sounds like a case where you would have needed to do a round robin redirect to open up the target page. Not sure if you've ever done one of those before but it can be a little confusing. I've only done it like once or twice. JDC808 ♫ 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Very interesting, I've never seen this before. Thanks for highlighting. — Czello ^{( music)} 08:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, JDC. I have seen you wrote a draft about the new world title. Can I made a suggestion? I have seen several people pointing the new title feels like a secondary title below Roman Reigns. Can you creat a reception section? Other titles like the 24 7, Intercontinental and Universal have a reception section. Here are the sources: PWINsider corey graves tommy dreamer pwinsider HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree I'll read over them later today JDC808 ♫ 13:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree added JDC808 ♫ 01:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

We have been working very hard on keeping everything up to date. And in past WWE event pages, I try to make sure all citations are at proper formatting (for example, some citations are missing dates they were published, etc). If you have the time, I want you to look at the recent improvements I made at the article Roadblock (March 2016). GodofDemonwars ( talk) 02:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I plan to take this to GA status. Would appreciate your feedback and comments. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@Ssven2 hmm, this is an odd one for me, as portions of that article were my own contributions. I'll look but I'm not sure what kind of feedback or comments I'd have, but I'm sure there's some copy-editing that I could do. JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

True. I have contributed to this article too and yes your edits are important as well, which is why I would appreciate your comments in the peer review. I'll resolve them as best as I can.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The reason why I tagged you and JDC808 in Backlash was because this is what the article looked like at that time: That version had a very poor Aftermath section. Plus, I saw some dates at dmy format when they should be at mdy format, which is why I decided to make improvements. I'm doing the same thing to past WWE event pages, like this and this. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 11:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Good work on the PLEs, GodofDemonwars. Yes, mdy dates are the norm as these are USA-based companies.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have seen on Fightful via Solowrestling [18] the reasons for the unification of the NXT and WWE women's tag team title. I'm trying to include it in the NXT title, but after 30 minutes, I can't to write a proper sentence. Would you be so kindly to include it? Something like "WWE decided to unify both titles since they didn't understand the point of the NXT title since the WWE title was used in NXT too"... -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree do you have the link for the source? JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Looks like Solowrestling translated the news from Figthful select [19] I doesn't have subscription, but the translation is [20]  : WWE didn't get the point of the NXT Women's Tag Team Championship being created and decided to use the WWE Women's Tag Team Championship as it was originaly intended: RAW, SD and NXT. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree I meant do you have that link for Solowrestling? So that I could add it too. JDC808 ♫ 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I wrote it twice XD Link N18 and N 20. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 08:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree oh, sorry, it didn't show on the mobile app. I see it now. JDC808 ♫ 08:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree I ended up using a different source because solowrestling was having issues loading for me earlier today, but the info has been added. JDC808 ♫ 08:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, man. I couldn't do it better. (literaly, I can't) -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi it seems to me that 190.219.215.124 needs to be reported for vandalism (idk how to do it) but if you back on the bloodline Page you will see they keep adding Ava Raine to members 86.154.216.6 ( talk) 05:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Heyman has always lugged around Roman Reigns' belts for him going down to the ring, be it 1, 2, or now 3.

Heyman is a toady, that's what toadies do, because lugging around your own title belts is too menial a task for a "tribal chief".

All 3 belts are in play (as WWE.com still individually lists the lineages of the WWE and Universal titles under the standard belts), so who actually physically carries them to the ring really doesn't matter. They all collectively represent the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, so once Roman loses them, then we can see what comes of it/them. But until then, it's 3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds per my edit summary, Reigns himself only carries the one belt (proof enough by his recent defense at a live event where he only carried and raised up the one belt instead of all three). Previously, Heyman only carried the other belts when Roman was not holding them for his entrances or while in the ring. JDC808 ♫ 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Reading WAAAAAAAY too much into this. All 3 belts are Roman's property until someone beats him for them. WWE still recognizes the regular WWE and Universal title belts as the official belts for those titles. Reigns' custom title is essentially a 1,000 day gold watch. Who physically carries the belts to the ring does not matter. Heyman is Reigns' toady, thus he hauls around his toys for him. It's that simple. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds here's a thing, they modeled the women's championship off of Roman's new belt (it even says "undisputed" despite not being undisputed), which makes me think this isn't necessarily a custom belt like originally thought. JDC808 ♫ 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That's all well and good...however while WWE.com did update the women's titles, they still recognize the WWE and Universal titles separately and under their standard belts. As it stands right now Reigns has 3 belts in his possession (who physically carries them to the ring doesn't matter - it's nice to have a lackey to do such things for you). We're not really gonna know how things will shake out until Reigns loses the title(s). So as long as Roman (and entourage) still lug around the 3 belts, things are what they are. Anything else is would be/could be/maybe speculation and rumor. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds I know that WWE.com does that, which is addressed in the articles. And it kind of does matter who carries them. Like any match graphic you see now, it's going to have Roman and his one new belt, not all three. JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Because that is his personal 1,000 day belt - his "precious" if you will. It really isn't that hard. Roman carries his custom belt, as that marked his 1,000 day reign...that's HIS BABY. The other belts are still the official belts and he makes Heyman schlep them around, because that's what toadies/lackeys are for. It really is a 3-2-1 setup...3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner, and until the other belts disappear, it is what it is. I'm not trying to beat you up or anything, but you really are over thinking this. Heyman is hardly the first manager to lug around a belt for a client. Heck, you ever see a boxing match, where a champion boxer and his entourage come to the ring single file, and the manager/hype man is physically carrying the belt over his head, showing it off. That's pretty much what Heyman does for Reigns, and other managers have done for their guys. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds create a post on the project's talk page to get further input because we're not getting anywhere. JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I have the same idea. I have been editors talking about what is best for the articles. We should reach a conclusion about what revision is the best. GodofDemonwars ( talk) 09:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The important thing is just to make it clear that all 3 belts are in play. The standard WWE and Universal title belts haven't been discarded/abandoned. We're getting WAAAAAY too deep in the weeds dissecting who physically carries the belts to the ring. As long as it's made clear that all 3 belts are part of the package, that's all I really care about. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:AEW-Collision-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article God of War Ragnarök you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN ( talk) 01:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have seen you updated some of the belts used to represent the WWE Title. Yesterday I watch this video. [21] To be honest, I didn't noticed the European title had a green strap. Maybe you can do something with it. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@HHH Pedrigree That's interesting. I didn't know that either. I'll look into it more. JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't see clearly, but looks like McMahon - X Pac match at WM included the green strap. [22]. Looks like when McMahon retired the title it was green [23] (hard to see, I expected a greener title). But looks like Mideon had a black title. [24] -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The article God of War Ragnarök you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:God of War Ragnarök for comments about the article, and Talk:God of War Ragnarök/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN ( talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Kratos PS4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. ( t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey there! Would love your input on this discussion on timelines in tag team articles. Thanks :) Sekyaw (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I gotta know why you have such an issue with the way I format references.

I've been doing it this way on God knows how many articles, for God knows how many years, and you are the only one who seems to have an issue with it.

I just gotta know...why? Vjmlhds (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds because they're not formatted correctly and look very informal (I've said this I don't know how many times now). We want quality articles, not mediocrity. It does not matter how long you've done something if you've done it wrong or poorly that entire time. I've asked you about this countless times because I'm tired of fixing these things, but for whatever reasons, you are not willing to learn and I don't understand. It's so easy to format them correctly but you just won't. I gotta know, why?

And while I have you, I just had to fix something else and that's the formatting of the dashes. I've previously explained the correct way to format them on your talk page but you've ignored that as well...

You've been on Wikipedia for just about as long as I have. However, you've learned one way to do something (in this case, the source formatting) and you've decided to stick to that instead of trying to improve. JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You know, no one really sees the formatting unless they really dig deep and give it the fine tooth comb treatment. What I do isn't wrong, it just isn't your way. Doing it my way has served me well for a great many years, and just because one editor has an issue with it, it doesn't mean it's mediocre and not of quality. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

One other thing, when you say things like "We want quality articles, not mediocrity." it makes you come off as a Wiki-snob. Who are you to judge what does and doesn't make a quality article, and what is and isn't a quality editor. Are you implying you are better than me? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds so you're just going to stick to your guns. Like, why would you not want better quality articles? "It's worked for me for many years". Okay, that doesn't mean things can't be improved. Let's look back at professional wrestling event articles from around 2015 or older. Sure, the formatting (for the entire article, not just sources) that was used back then "worked", but if we continued with that because it "worked", we'd be stuck with subpar articles, especially if you compare them to what we have today. Also, it's not my way, it's literally the format established by Wikipedia for what Wikipedia considers for quality articles (more specifically, a consensus among editors was reached to decide that). Go and take any of your articles that you've worked on through the GA or the FA process, and they're going to tell you to fix the formatting on the sources (unless you get a really lenient GA reviewer, but it wouldn't fly in FA).

I never once said that I'm better than you. I'm not perfect and I'm still making improvements. However, what I have is a history of quality improvements, especially here with wrestling articles, but more specifically, I have experience from GA and FA review processes with a number of articles promoted to GA and FA, and I have also reviewed a number articles for GA and FA that were promoted, so I have a pretty good idea on what to look for in determining quality.

Now don't get me wrong, you make good contributions, there are just some things that can be improved. That's all I'm asking for here. JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That's the difference between you and me...I'm just trying to add info to the articles and play by the rules (adding sources and not leaving them bare)...you are trying to get barnstars. If you want to re-do things your own way after I make an edit, then fine...I don't own any of the articles. But don't make little brow beating comments in the edit summaries, or act all high and mighty with your "We want quality articles, not mediocrity" spiel (sorry, but that does make you come off as pretentious and it doesn't sit well with me). I do what I do to get the job done and I make sure everything's legal. If you want to pretty everything up to try to get a barnstar, then Godspeed, I hope you get 100 of them - just save me the lecture, OK. I'm not trying to make this into some kind of feud between us (I need a Wiki feud like I need another hole in my head), but as I said, you are the only one in all the time I've been doing this (and that spans years) that has ever had an issue, which says to me that this is a you thing, and not a me thing. I'm not doing anything wrong, it's just not pretty enough for your tastes. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds as said before, I want to improve the quality of these articles, and I'm not sorry for that (if a barnstar gets rewarded from that, cool, but I never said that's what I want). Someone would have eventually called you out on this, it just happened to be me. You keep trying to say it's my taste or my thing, but again, it's Wikipedia's standards, which I just happen to agree with (for the most part).

At the end of the day, I just don't understand why you can't make this one little change which is so easy to do. Like you're literally already doing most of what's needed. All you have to do is take what you're doing now, copy-paste the bits into the template, and add the author and access date. What is so hard about that? JDC808 ♫ 03:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is an inanimate object - it can't have standards. Only things capable of having standards are people, as all standards are when you get down to it are particular tastes of particular people. As far as this particular person goes, the standards this particular person uses are plenty good enough. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds you know well enough what I mean when I say "Wikipedia"; I'm referring to the rules/standards/guidelines/policies, etc. that were agreed upon by editors which are to be used across Wikipedia for writing articles, formatting them, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are some things I also disagree with in regards to some of Wikipedia's standards, but this is a super simple formatting issue—it's just making sure that all the correct information is being displayed for a reference.

Also, you failed to answer my question of why it's so hard for you to make this change? Saying what you do is "plenty good enough" doesn't answer that.

And you're basically telling me that you are unwilling to improve... JDC808 ♫ 04:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't need to change, and it doesn't need improving. You are not better than me, you are not smarter than me. if it's my way, then it is the right way. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds wow, and you say that I sounded pretentious.... JDC808 ♫ 05:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Not pretentious, just stating that there is nothing wrong with the way I do things. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds you literally just said that you do not need to improve and that your way is the right way. I am just baffled. JDC808 ♫ 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

By saying I need to improve implies what I'm doing now is wrong and that your way is better. Why is it that you think you are better than I am, that you are superior to me in any way? Who are you to talk down to me like I am nothing? Vjmlhds (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds stop. I'm sorry if what I have said or how I have said it has come off sounding whatever way that you have perceived it, but you are making it personal. We are not talking about who we are as people or whether or not one of us is better than the other. We are talking about improvements and issues with articles here. You keep saying it's my way. Stop. I've explained it to you however many times now that it's a Wikipedia standard for formatting. Saying that something needs improved does not mean that what you are doing is wrong. It simply means that it can be better. If two guys go out and have a wrestling match and it's just a 3 star match, that doesn't mean they did anything wrong, but if they made improvements, it could be a 4 or 5 star match. JDC808 ♫ 06:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

When we're both pushing up daisies, is it really gonna matter how a reference on Wikipedia was formatted? You do you, I'll do me, and we'll all live happily ever after, OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds to the future editors, yes, it does in fact matter. I still don't understand why you can't make this one little change. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process to improve articles (in all facets), but you're refusing to do that on this matter. All you have to do is copy-paste this template and plug in the details (again, you're already doing most of this).

<ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |date= |last= |first= |work= |access-date= }}</ref>

If there isn't a proper name for the author (e.g., it's instead WWE.com Staff), replace "last" and "first" with "author". JDC808 ♫ 20:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

If I do that for you, what will you do for me? Can't just pester people to do things without giving something in return. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds you keep having this me vs. you mentality instead of seeing the bigger picture here (the betterment of these articles and Wikipedia as a whole), and it wouldn't have been "pestering" if you wouldn't have been so resistant for so long. But what am I to do for you? JDC808 ♫ 23:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not me vs. you...as I said before I'm not looking for a Wiki feud, but I will defend myself if I'm not treated with respect. Anybody that does something without getting anything in return is a sucker. There's another more vulgar word for someone who lets people take advantage of them (hint - rhymes with "switch") I'm neither that nor a sucker, so if you want me to make your precious little reference formats "just so", then put something on the table that benefits me, and save the sappy "bigger picture"/"betterment of these articles" BS for someone who will fall for all that goody-goody muckety-muck. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds wanting to produce quality content is not BS. You have to remember, this is not a fan wiki (we just happen to be fans who edit it). I have always pushed for quality and the overall betterment of these articles (could I have maybe been better with how I have said things, sure, it's easy to get heated when you have to keep repeating yourself). Like I've pushed to have changes made to the professional wrestling Style Guide to have better quality articles or just a better presentation (a recent example: how we recognize the individual reigns for tag teams in tables on tag team championship articles, which I pinged you so that you could provide input because I respected your opinion and liked the change you made at the current champions page and felt that should be the way to do it, and I had always felt the previous way was odd).

As for me vs. you, you keep saying things like "my way" or "my taste" or "my precious little reference format", but yet I have to keep explaining to you that the formatting is a standard across Wikipedia. What do you not understand about that? I don't know how much clearer I can be. And how is this in any way taking advantage of you? And what could I even offer that would benefit you?

Before you answer, think clearly and logically, and try not to let your personal feelings dictate your response. JDC808 ♫ 04:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Every time I hear someone say "think of the bigger picture" or "something bigger than one's self", I just want to take a flat head screwdriver and drive it through my temple because it is such utter goody-goody touchy feely BS. Don't sit there and give me the "Wikipedia standard" line like you're fighting for truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way. You want it changed because it's the way you want it done. Wikipedia on it's own would just sit there and collect dust, it isn't capable of establishing anything on it's own, so when someone says "Wikipedia standards" it just comes off as sugary sweet dreck. There are no Wikipedia standards, it is the standards of the editors who think they know better than everybody else. Don't give me Wiki-speak, just be honest and say you want things done a certain way because it's what you want. Just be honest and admit you want it for yourself, and spare me the phony baloney "betterment of Wikipedia" nonsense. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

And to button up a couple of things - "How is this in any way taking advantage of you?" Simple, you want me to do what you want to do without me getting anything in return...want some, gotta give some, that's how it works in the real world, otherwise you're a sucker. And this - "And what could I even offer that would benefit you?" Simple again, an admission that Wiki-speak is a bunch of BS and that you just want to have your way. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds well you did not think clearly or logically and let your personal feelings dictate your response. I'm trying to be civil but you just want to keep trying to make it personal, and you are admittedly making it hard to stay civil. So much time has been wasted when this could have been solved 24 hours ago, actually months ago. You've made your intent clear that you do not want to follow Wikipedia standards (and you know what I mean when I say that) because you believe that you do no wrong and you are right (I'm only repeating what you have previously said). We are obviously getting nowhere because of your refusal to collaborate. If you want to make edits without any worry about standards, there are plenty of fan wikis for you to edit. JDC808 ♫ 05:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You want me to to do things your way, just simply admit that I am right. Swallow your pride and admit you are in it for yourself and that Wiki speak is BS, and I'll gladly do the references to your tastes. That's all it takes...just give me that. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Meh...wasn't as painful as I thought it would be...dropdown function is actually fairly easy. Just gotta get used to it I guess. I apologize for getting a little rough with you, it's just that you did come off as a little holier than thou, and that ruffled my feathers, but I could have chilled a bit myself as well. Now can we please put this to bed, shake hands, and live happily ever after? Vjmlhds (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds been off for the last day, but yeah, it's a nice handy tool (unfortunately not available on mobile). I realize that I can come off a bit strong and sorry about that, but yes, we can put this behind us. JDC808 ♫ 16:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Fist bump... Vjmlhds (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hat tip. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I inadvertently deleted Uncle Howdy when updating the 2023 Draft article regarding Bray's passing. I moved Howdy to his own section, as they were now no longer connected as a group, but my fat fingers wound up wiping Howdy out. Unintended on my part, just wanted to clarify things. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds gotcha, it does make me wonder what will become of him, as it was reported it was Bo Dallas playing him (and the resemblance was uncanny). Still in disbelief over Bray though. JDC808 ♫ 04:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Truthfully, Howdy will just probably quietly disappear, as they're not gonna wanna do any Bray/Fiend related storylines. If Bo Dallas sticks around WWE, they'll find something else for him to do. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Per that discussion there, I was thinking Characters of God of War should at least be moved to either Characters of the God of War series or Characters of the God of War franchise (due to the lead wording), to help make it clearer that it's encompassing the whole thing. What do you think?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 11:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Please, avoid to include personal opinion on the articles. If we mention that a match is "prominent" we need independent sources supporting that fact. Is not up to us decide which matches are prominent based on pur personal taste or criteria. Who does de ide that Miz - Knight is prominent but Rey-Theory isnt? HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WCW Championship (1991-1994).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Bro atleast you should've reverted to the version before me on the article, like before I edited it, it was WWE Fastlane 2023 that was the event before it. WrestleLuxury Wiki ( talk) 12:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi - I just found the currently blank page World Heavyweight Championship (WWE 2023) that appears to need cleaning up - there's a lot of moving around in your contribs so I wasn't able to figure out what should happen to it myself. Tollens ( talk) 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@Tollens Apologies, forgot to take care of that. I'll do that now. JDC808 ♫ 08:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Crown Jewel Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

You're overthinking it, my man. It's pro wrestling, all titles are kayfabe when you get right down to it, so all the stuff about being a "non-official title" just gums up the works. Besides, AEW does recognize the title on their roster page, so it shouldn't be an issue. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@Vjmlhds after you scroll all the way down to Hook, yeah, it does say he's FTW Champion, but under the champions banner, it is not listed as an AEW title. There was also a video that Tony Schiavone did on AEW's YouTube going over the title's history and said it was not an official AEW title (trying to find the video). Yes, there's the kayfabe of it, but this would be like saying Punk's "Real World Championship" was an official AEW title (although in fairness, the FTW title is more "official" than it was). JDC808 ♫ 04:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, just wanted to know why wrestlers is used instead of superstars, although I agree it sounds better and should be used, why is it when superstars is the term used by WWE? Thanks. YoloMc8562 ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC). reply

@ YoloMc8562 See WP:PW/MARKETING. It's WWE jargon. JDC808 ♫ 02:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Damn haven't seen that before, thanks for linking it, I'll know for future reference. YoloMc8562 ( talk) 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Stop reverting my changes on the God of War Ragnarok Wikipedia page, when they make sense and follow other Wikipedia video game examples. 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:84FB:6163:867F:115E ( talk) 17:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:84FB:6163:867F:115E if you would pay attention to the edit summary, you're stating that you're making improvements, but your edits are throwing off the flow of sentences. The article passed a GA review with this format, which is an established format. JDC808 ♫ 22:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Please, be careful with the CM Punk article. It's one of the last FA we have. As you may know, the main complain about pro wrestling it's we write with excesive detail about weekly tv shows, almost a detailed summarize of fictional storylines. As you may know, the project guidelines say "Summarize the major events and key points of the wrestler's career. Avoid writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format) and adding excessive details." Writing every weekly appearence it's just no major event, no key point and week-per-week format. We can summarize these past weeks with he made appearences and was assigned to RAW, avoiding proseline and focusing on the important. Also, WP:IN-UNIVERSE, don't present fictional events as real. Punk cut a promo in character, so it's not notable to include that the character said he is home. If you have any problem, you can start a discussion on the talk page. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree there's a reason his quotes are in quotations. And there wasn't a "week-by-week" format, it mentions he made a couple of appearances in order to make a decision. JDC808 ♫ 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's in-universe perspective. He didnt visited different brand to make a decision. the booker decided which brand. CM Punk the character made a choice, Phil Brooks the person didnt. The article is already twice the size of WP:Pagesize states, we don't need extra details on fictional stories.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, JDC808,

Please be more careful with page moves. You shouldn't have to move an article multiple times. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz not sure what you're referring to when saying moving a page to a title that is "harder to follow". I had to open up page titles by doing round robin redirects so the pages could be moved to their correct titles. There were a few articles that needed this. JDC808 ♫ 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

HI. I just made several edits on that article (feel free to revert if you hate it) and it feels like this old GA article needs some love; especially its lead section where it kinda needs to be rewritten. Thank you. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:SummerSlam logo 2012-2021.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:2024 WWE Draft logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you use move the page AEW Worlds End to Worlds End (2023)? It's for the viewers to see. Fixer88 ( talk) 06:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Fixer88 done JDC808 ♫ 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. I'm not following the WWE Speed format. Just a question. There are any sources about Pete Dunne as the producer of the show? I can't find it in the article. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree just added one JDC808 ♫ 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Undisputed WWE Universal Championship.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

cody was still listed on wwe.com as being on raw as recently as yesterday. only today was his profie switched to smackdown after this announcement. Muur ( talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Muur they had switched it to SmackDown the other day, but his last promo on Raw, he said he was technically a SmackDown guy JDC808 ♫ 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:AEW World title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply