User talk:RandySavageFTW

This user may have left Wikipedia. RandySavageFTW has not edited Wikipedia since November 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that you edited a professional wrestling related article. Wikipedia has a professional wrestling WikiProject, which aims to improve all professional wrestling related articles. You are free to join or can explore what the project is about by clicking here. Here are some other good links to help you get started with Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the misunderstanding. Didn't mean for it to sound like I was laughing at you. I'm laughing at them because of how pointless their acts against me were. Sorry. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Motörhead (album), makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's two genres, it's BRs.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about? Read WP:ALBUM. Genres are separated by commas and only the first word of the first genre listed is capitalized. The rest are lower case. It makes no difference if there are 2, 3, 4 or more. Fields in all album articles are separated by commas. If you have any questions feel free to ask and I will assist you. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they got to you again. Yes, for albums there is a rule for comma breaks (although if you look at the vast majority of metal albums on wikipedia, they use line breaks) but as for infoboxes in band articles, there's no such rule. you already know I prefer line breaks, but I just wish people would stop changing them. It's all so inane. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing them..

RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Sunny from the list due to this "They are said to be "good on the mic." Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash, Steve Austin, Dusty Rhodes, The Rock, Jim Cornette, Sunny" (bolding done by me for emphasis), and "and some not (eg. Hogan, Sunny)". Is it just me or is Sunny's name there twice? Is this not both redundant and contradictory? I shall revert your undoing of my original edit, but please be more careful in future. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels,  Triple H, Mick Foley, Jesse Ventura, Jake Roberts, Chris Jericho, Terry Funk, Harley Race, Randy Savage, and Roddy Piper's careers were made on their ability to cut good promos, some in conjunction with their excellent ring-work (eg. Jericho, Michaels, Flair), and some not (eg. Hogan, Sunny). 

It says Sunny and Hogan were good on the mic, contrary to their ring work, which was bad. It doesn't say Sunny is good on the mic and bad on the mic.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I read it wrong. It sounded strange to me, so I removed Sunny. please free to readd her. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First look at the sales figure of 100 million records here which is the number that has been claimed by the source that you seem to be quite fond of and then take a look at the sales figure of 50 million records (under their bio-section)here which is the number stated on their official website. Which one do you think is closer to the actual sales figure especially when they state another 50 million as a sales figure for the period of Ozzy Ozbourne's solo career? Don't you think that the 100 million figure on www.mybrum.co.uk is the combined number for both Black Sabbath and the solo career? --Harout72 (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says as of 1979, Sabbath has sold 50 million.

Don't you think that the 100 million figure on www.mybrum.co.uk is the combined number for both Black Sabbath and the solo career?

No..

RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I will help you to read what needs to be read in the source to verify sales figures. Here is a copied and pasted lines from Black Sabbath/Ozzy Ozbourne's official web site [1]:

1. Ozzy releases his first record with Black Sabbath in 1970 (released Friday, February 13th). The self-titled record goes platinum that same year in the U.K. and U.S.
2. Ozzy releases 10 records with Black Sabbath.
3. Black Sabbath has sold over 50 million records (to date) worldwide.
4. Black Sabbath embarks on several world tours and performs to legions of fans around the globe.
5. Black Sabbath performs at the first California Jam in June 1974 to over 250,000 fans.
6. Ozzy leaves Black Sabbath and goes solo in 1979.

By the way, my source as you like to refer it to, does not say as of 1979, Black Sabbath has sold 50 million but rather this is what it says:

Black Sabbath has sold over 50 million records (to date) worldwide.

Hope this helped. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proof that it meant today. It probally meant '79.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out why undid it there's no need to be rude Adster95 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have used the edit summary.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry im a little new to wikipedia Adster95 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

A) On Marth 17th 2008, at 18:17, I changed the "Genre" tag on the music box the preferred form. I wrote on the edit summary: Featured articles on Wikipedia such as the NIN or the Metallica page list the music genres like this. If anyone disagrees, provide a good rationale before changing.

B) On May 4rth, 2008, at 15:41, you changed the "Genre" tag, without providing any explanation for that. I did another edit at 22:09, and wrote on the edit summary: Some featured thrash articles on Wikipedia such as Metallica and Slayer have the "Genre" tag presented this way. If anyone disagrees about this, please provide rationale. Let me emphasize this:

B.1) These are featured articles - or, the best articles produced on Wikipedia. Interestingly, these "best of Wikipedia" articles have the "Genre" tag formatting the way I proposed them for Sepultura.

B.2) Sepultura is (mainly) a thrash metal band, so I reasoned that their article should have some similarities with other major thrash bands (Anthrax, Megadeth), i.e. the "Genre" tag.

B.3) So, if you wished to change the "Genre" tag again, at least you could have written something along to justify it.

C) At 22:35 you undid my edit, and again provided no explanation. So I also undid your edit, and wrote on the summary: Didn't provide rationale before changing. Vandalism? You undid my edit again and wrote: Don't know what you['re talking about]. (You wrote the same thing of your edits on the Chaos A.D. article.)

Yes, you knows what I'm talking about. A quick visit to this talk page and anyone can notice that it's not the first time you have engaged on a edit war over the issue at hand. That's why I wrote on the edit summary, "Yes you do. Visit your own talkpage, under "Please stop" section".

D) And yet again he undid my revision, without further explanation. And, again, I undid his revision, and added to the summary, "Again?"

E) Another "undid" from your part, and wrote: "rv vandalism?" Cute. So I'm the vandal?

I hope we can settle this nicely...

Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. Visit your own talkpage, under "Please stop" section

Navlos can say what he wants. It doesn't mean it's true. Also, Navlos already said albums have commas..

Sepultura is (mainly) a thrash metal band, so I reasoned that their article should have some similarities with other major thrash bands (Anthrax, Megadeth), i.e. the "Genre" tag

Sepultura's article? I didn't even edit that.

At 22:35 you undid my edit, and again provided no explanation. So I also undid your edit, and wrote on the summary: Didn't provide rationale before changing. Vandalism?

No explanation? I posted WP:ALBUM#Genre twice.

Another "undid" from your part, and wrote: "rv vandalism?" Cute. So I'm the vandal?

Well, you called me one when you're the one ignoring the rules. So, yeah.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but please don't change the capitalization for album names as you did for Peace Sells… but Who's Buying?. The conjunction 'but' is never capitalized when it's not the first or last word as per WP:CAPS. There also isn't a rule dictating that 'but' should be capitalized after ellipses.

Thank you for your understanding, Xnux the Echidna 00:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sad But True?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That needs to be changed too, thanks for showing me that. Xnux the Echidna 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response, the 'and' & 'the' in "Holy Wars… the Punishment Due" and Killing Is My Business… and Business Is Good! aren't capitalized either. Read WP:MUSTARD; the only times articles or conjunctions are capitalized is if they are the first or last word of a title or if they are used accordingly in parentheses (à la "(Don't Fear) The Reaper"). Xnux the Echidna 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

I don't wish start another edit war with you. So, carefully read through my arguments and give me some feedback later.

You claim that Chaos A.D. is a death metal, based on AMG review of the album [2]. The Wikipedia staff supposedly consider the All Music Guide to be a reliable source. Fair enough. But does that does mean it's also reliable regarding Sepultura's career? I'll give you three quick examples of why might reconsider Allmusic exactness.

• a) From their Sepultura biography: "Their drive and determination (they sang in English from day one) more than made up for their geographic isolation and inexperience..."

Wrong. They changed their lyrics to english a few months prior to recording Bestial Devastation. If you can check out the BD article, you'll see I've sourced this particular bit of information. It's on the Official Sepultura biography [3], pages 29 & 30.

• b) From their Arise review [4]: "The band toured nonstop in support of the album for most of the following two years, and was therefore pressured by both time constraints and enormous expectations when the bandmembers finally entered Tampa's Morrisound Studios with producer Scott Burns to record 1991's Arise."

Wrong again. The Beneath the Remains tour went on for about 1 year (Barcinski & Gomes, page 83).

• c) Allmusic states that Chaos A.D. is death metal.

That's highly controversial. The Don Kaye liner notes of Arise, for example, stated that Sepultura's fourth LP is the pinnacle of their death/thrash phase. Now, if Chaos A.D. sold way more than Arise, why is it not considered the pinnacle of their death/thrash instead? Maybe because they changed their style... And, by the way, the music press at the time certainly held that as true. They stated that Chaos A.D. helped Sepultura transcend the death/thrash style (Barcinski & Gomes, page 131).

Now, let's talk about subjetive listening experiences. Let's compare Chaos A.D. with some landmark Death Metal releases that were roughly contemporary it. Would you honestly say that Chaos A.D. neatly fits alongside Morbid Angel's Covenant? Deicide's Legion? Obituary's The End Complete? Cannibal Corpse's The Bleeding? Or is really closer to Pantera's Far Beyond Driven, Biohazard's State of the World Address or Machine Head's Burn My Eyes?

Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine..we'll leave it like it is. I don't even consider it death metal, just noticed they did.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arise (album) article is now listed as a good article. Thought you should know. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Judgment Day (2008). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SRX 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. No one replied, though. You also reverted twice.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but maybe you need to read the details of what you're deleting from the Eddie GUerrero article? I have no problems with only his highest "PWI 500" ranking, but that has nothing to do with his and Art Barr's ranking of the "top 100 tag teams of the PWI Era" at all, can we please stop this silly edits where you say "only the top ranking" and i say "it's not a PWI 500 Ranking", you're right (but it's not applicable here) and I'm right (and it is applicable). I got no problems with removing his 2003 ranking or whatever, but the tag rank is something else. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, consensus is to add the highest award. That's not Eddie's highest. It doesn't matter if it's a different award.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you reverted a recent edit I made to the Benoit article. Fair enough, but when the edit isn't vandalism, it's polite to at least leave a note letting the other person know why you feel as you do. That avoids provoking a possible edit war and also avoids giving the impression that you feel a sense of ownership of the article. Thanks. --James26 (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never see any other victories listed with how they won. I don't think it's that notable.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There have been many many discussions on this point. The correct usage is Spears's. Only plurals loose the post-apostrophe s. Please refer to Wiki guidelines and Lynn Truss as well as Fowlers and the Oxford English Dictionary. Cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure not to change All Music Guide to Jazz to "Allmusic to Jazz" or All Music Guide to the Blues to Allmusic to the Blues. Your change to Bitches Brew made the change to All Music Guide to Jazz. There is also a bot set up to make the Allmusic changes: User:J Milburn Bot. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ring name Buddy "The Heartthrob" to Bret Hart's wikipedia page today and you reverted it without contacting me or listing a reason why. His book clearly states that he went by that nickname, unwillingly, for a short time. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article talk page rather than deleting. Sarcastrophe (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, copy and past moves like you did with Wrestle War are against the rules of Wikipedia and will be undone. The only reason no one noticed until now is that very few people monitor the WCW/NWA PPV's other than myself and I haven't been online in awhile. TJ Spyke 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click the move tab on top of pages for more info on moving pages (including if something is already at the location). The mainb reason I moved it is because when I originally moved it (back in 2006) I searched and found that the PPV was almost always referred to as "Wrestle War" instead of "WrestleWar". Even if I didn't find that, copy and paste moves are always reverted regardless of whether that is the right page name or not since pages have to be moved properly (to preserve the edit history). TJ Spyke 16:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't violate Wikipedia in any sense, and adheres to rules. Reign in Blood uses the opinions of groups as regards the album, and that's an FA. It has been reinserted, and I have every intention of reverting whomever keeps taking it out of the articles I have inserted it in. At the end of the day, it is neutral and sourced. That's irrelevant of how many straw polls you intentionally start. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Legacy" section of Reign in Blood, there is the following; "Rapper Necro was heavily influenced by the album, and has remarked that it takes him back to the 80s, "when shit was pure."[24] Ektomorf vocalist Zoltán Farkas describes the album as one of his primary influences.[25] Paul Mazurkiewicz of Cannibal Corpse stated Lombardo's performance on the album helped him play faster throughout his career.[26]" Even in an FA I wrote, namely South of Heaven, it says the following in the "Critical reception" section; "Grave's Ola Lindgren and Bolt Thrower's Karl Willetts both rate South of Heaven as amongst the top five albums of all time,[14][15] while Max Kolesne of Brazilian death metal group Krisiun remembers hearing the song "Silent Scream" for the first time: "It just blew me away. It was like fast double-bass, fast kicks during the whole song. That was very inspiring for me."[16]". I'd just like to say that removing content is actually vandalism, and you've done it several times. None of your reasons for removing have any basis in Wikipedia policy, and is merely down to the fact you dislike the band. Frankly, I'm fed up of having to waste my time explaining such things to editors like you who try to police major metal related articles by removing any content you disagree with. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything we can do about renaming Glen Jacobs to Kane? We've had discussions and discussions but people keep being lazy and saying it's "Not Done". WP:PW is ruling everything now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a gift for your hard work on PW!

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		For Many Contributions on Professional Wrestling Degenerate-Y (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...I didn't mean to revert that edit you made, sorry about that!

HairyPerry 17:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I did because you have two identical links right next to each other for some reason, why?

HairyPerry 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you make edition (WWE Saturday Night's Main Event) linked when SNME is already linked? Why wouldn't you just make SNME the link you made for edition that way it could be updated too. SNME is already link from the JBL beer drinking contest as well. Happy Editing.

HairyPerry 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in an edit war on WWE Judgement Day. If you continue to revert edits then you could be blocked for violating the 3-revert rule. No more than 2 reverts can happen on one page in 24 hours. You have recently violated that rule, I will not report you but if you continue I might have too.--WillC 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the capitalisation of "on" is bothering you, but Genesis themselves spell it with a capital, and that's the definitive source. https://tickets.genesis-music.com/ Please refrain from changing this again, cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move the page to Biff Wellington or Bif Wellington, or any other spelling. It was fine as Shayne Bower. I will revert it back to Shayne Bower. Mr. C.C. (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but you don't see Rhino and Sabu articles as their stage names and they are more notable than Shayne Bower. Please give a better reason than "he's not known as Shayne Bower... at all." Please leave it as Shayne Bower. Nobody was bothered by the fact that the article was title "Shayne Bower." So leave it as Shanyne Bower. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but if it hasn't been moved to Biff or Bif Wellington till now then obviously there was no problem with the naming convention of the article. Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have more discussion on it. Put it up for discussion at WP:PW. Until that happens don't move it. Mr. C.C. (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more civil in discussions. Saying things such as "I don't give a shit" is not appropriate. I've noticed this at Article name changes and just in general, so please be more civil from now on. Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my change of 'is' to 'are' on the Metallica article per WP:ENGVAR. I'm not quite sure I agree with your logic on this one, it's not a difference of national variety. Instead, 'is' refers to a singular person ("David is the best person in the world ever") and 'are' is used when referring to a group of individuals ("Metallica are the best band in the world").

Would you mind clarifying? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Gene Snitsky has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. There is no need to swear or call other people a "Fuckin' jobber", just because there's a minor mistake in the article. I think you seriously need to read and adhere to WP:CIVIL. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is an ongoing problem. See [5], [6], and [7]. Similar edit summaries in the future will lead to notification of administrators. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I wasn't cursing at anybody. Wikipedia isn't censored. "Fuckin' jobber" was directed at Snitsky. He's shit. And the SNME thing is just ridiculous. And people were fucking up the names on Oleg Prudius (WHO?)'s article. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now stopped using edit summaries. While this is definitely better than using edit summaries with profanities, it would be even better if you could an appropriate edit summary. Thank you for your continued contributions to the project. MSGJ 13:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that current agreement at WP:HOCKEY has that diacritics are not shown on all North America related pages, and shown on European pages and player pages. Just didn't want you to go through all the work of adding them on pages such as 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs only to get reverted. -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just curious why you felt that this article needed to be disambiguated from Philip Lafond past the already existing hatnote. This move seems to be a very strange one to me. Stephen Day (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in all of the cases I've seen, the articles in question still had the same, or at least, very similiar names. It still seems like an unnesseary step to me. Stephen Day (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the move discussion Here. I figured you would want to have a say. Stephen Day (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion was more than five days old, which makes it eligible for closure according to the WP:Requested moves. I closed it according to that process. I realize you disagree with the result, but that is not a reason to revert my closure, that is a reason to bring the situation to a wider forum. Please revert yourself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meltzers ratings are not titles are accomplishments. They are just that, RATINGS. They shouldn't be in that section. Rather than get involved in a edit war, I started a discussion at WP:PW to settle this (AGAIN). If there is a consensus to remove them, I trust you will respect that decision and stop adding them back. TJ Spyke 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unique situation that we haven't had with other PPVs. While the event happened in 1995, it didn't air until 1996. So the previous and next PPV's depends on whether you go by when the event happened or when it aired. Here is a source that it aired in 1996: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/usa/wcw/japanppv.html

I don't see why TBH. I would not be opposed to going by the taping date though if others feel the same way. TJ Spyke 22:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply has been posted here. Cheers. LarRan (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Randy, The fact that the other band's "Starlight" doesnt "even" have an article doesnt mean anything. Anyone (including myself) could create it this morning. What matters is that there are two homonymous and both enjoyed moderate success (the one without an article enjoyed even more success than Muse's, even though this one is more recent and with a much bigger fan base).

In any case, I dont see the problem in renaming it to Starlight (Muse song) anyway, nor I see the reasons for this messages exchange other than, maybe, too much spare time. What's the problem? it is more precise, even if there was no other song wih the same name, so, why should it be just Starlight (song)? MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your unconstructive edits. The article is currently titled after the name of the show. There is absolutely no reason to move it. You have not provided a reason to move the article away from its actual name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a third opinion to get this over with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and Gary should discuss the name of the Brawl to End it All article instead of edit warring. You could get blocked if you continue to move the article back and forth.--WillC 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussed in December, 3 people agreed with me about not listing them while 1 person agreed with you about listing them. 4-2 is consensus to me. If you want to try again you can, but the current consensus is to not include them. As for spaces, I can't speak for others but the extra spaces doesn't make it any easier or harder to edit to me. TJ Spyke 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally against Meltzer, I just don't get why some people have hard-ons for anything he says. His ratings don't mean anything and don't deserve special mention. Are you so stubborn that you refuse to accept the compromise? Mention it in the body of the article, but not the Championships and Accomplishments (and 1 persons rating is not a championship or an accomplishment). Not sure where your 5-5 number came from since that is not from the most recent discussion, but either way it wouldn't matter since the IP added it for no reason. TJ Spyke 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against that compromise? It keeps the rating in the article but keeps it out of a section it doesn't belong in. You adding the rating back in for no reason is the same as me removing it, so you can't say you are right. TJ Spyke 21:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use that as the only excuse as he would be a special case. For him, maybe include in the body of the article that he has had 24 matches receive 5 stars (for anybody that actually cares about that) and a link to Meltzer's article and the section on 5 stars. TJ Spyke 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess we could do it on a case by case basis. TJ Spyke 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. I generally only remove them when I am making another edit to the article anyways. I don't go around looking for stuff to remove. If I am editing Flair's article for some reason, I will do that too (unless someone else does it first), same with others. TJ Spyke 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any cases where the acronym is used and it doesn't refer to the film? -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing interest in improving the 2008–09 WHL season article. The first correction of your most recent edit was unfortunetly innacurate. For the sake of consistency with other articles on Wikipedia, I chose to revert your edit involving the opening statement. The reason being, is that linking within the 2008–09 WHL season should be avoided. It is bold for the purpose of identifying the article's title, and having one or more of the words linked, can be misleading. Also, the edits you made regarding the 2008 Bantam Draft and WHL Playoffs section titles, is also innacurate, because the Western Hockey League officially named them with the beginning words to be capitalized.[8][9] — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 08:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on your response, take a look at WP:BOLDTITLE. The last example states, "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to provide more detail..." — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I noticed that you've begun linking "Regular season" and "Playoffs" as part of your career statistics edits in ice hockey bio articles. All the other links are perfect, but I see a problem with these two in particular. You've been linking them to NHL specific articles. This is pretty iffy because most players have stats from leagues other than the NHL. I think it would be best if you linked these to Regular season and Playoff rather than NHL regular season and NHL playoffs. It gets rid of the glarring generalization that the stats are only from the NHL. Remember, other leagues have different structures for their regular seasons and playoffs, so it would be wrong to imply that what is currently being implied. Let me know what you think. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Yeah it was more of a precautionary thing for future edits. I wouldn't be all that worried about changing the ones that you already did. Thanks! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you.

The article should not have a forward slash per WP:NAME; this can cause technical problems (although mainspace subpages are disabled atm, that can change in the future), and also create an impression that that "Minus Award" is a subarticle of "NHL Plus". A dash in these case is recommended. Maxim_(talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAME says to not use slashes when it may imply a subordinate article ie Transport/Azerbaijan. W-B/S Penguins is very obviously not a subarticle of Wilkes-Barre. Grsz¹¹ 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which is why / is not a big deal, especially when it's the proper name. There is no precedent or consensus that it needs or should be changed. Grsz¹¹ 02:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Am I Evil to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I wasn't paying attention to the article at hand. Speaking of which, which article did I do it to? PCE (Talk)

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I thought it didn't matter because there are dozens of other wrestling articles that have the same double piping format and in addition, there are several more articles (including Funk's) that don't use the slash for the Jim Crockett Promotions and WCW company titles. PCE (Talk)

Is there a reason for your recent edit of the 2008-09 Boston Bruins Season? A template was created specifically to display the infobox on the page in team colours. Your revision seems to serve no purpose beyond stripping said colours from the infobox. If it was in keeping with certain WikiProject guidelines, please by all means cite relevant documentation. For the time being I've reverted the article to its previous state. Alrin (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very civilized and constructive response. I am so glad I can find people intelligent and understanding like you on Wikipedia. Forseti11 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just highly annoying to sift through, is all, especially when some of the edits don't show any discernible difference whatsoever. And I didn't even notice that I made it up that high. Thanks for pointing it out. Forseti11 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apoligize for removing any of your constructive edits, and would greatly appreciate your forgiveness. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that you prefer grey for the Season template? I'd rather upgrade the NHL one to have the features of the Canadiens one. Alaney2k (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your point about seasons not connecting. Maybe it was in a page I don't watch. I have to do some work on templates before I can propose anything (testing out some ideas) and no-one really seems to have an interest right now, so I don't know if it is worth the effort. Alaney2k (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit you made at 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs, please see Talk:2008 Stanley Cup playoffs#Goalie stats section. Thanks. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy eh? I saw that a lot of the major ones were missing so I went to town on it... but after all that effort I am a little too tired to disambig... sorry about that btw... I just like doing different types of hockey research.... especially for amateur hockey. Thanks for disambig-ing. DMighton (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to undo your page move, because we previously identified Capreol as a candidate for the undisambiguated title because of its uniqueness as a name — but just so you know for future reference, the usual procedure as spelled out at WP:CANSTYLE is for a place to be nominated for a page move first, so that we have a record of the discussion and research that went into ensuring that the name really was unique. The procedure also allows for leaving it alone if a person who isn't familiar with it moves an article without discussion first, so I'm just letting you know for next time. (Also, if you're planning to tackle any of the other Sudbury community articles, Walden is out but the rest of them are viable move candidates.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed over the last while that you have been changing a number of redirects such as here. While its is cool and prefered that the visible version of the link have the endash. It actually violates WP:NOTBROKEN if all you are doing is changing the redirect which is not visable as you did in the above edit. -Djsasso (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remember to remember the sortname. (I plan to go over the stats and fill in red links, etc.) Not sure what is wrong with capitalization. And I don't know what you mean by the = sign. Alaney2k (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also saying that I should be putting in links? The sortable over-rides that I think. I understand your points about capitalization and = now. Alaney2k (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll be fixing up the text you mentioned using AWB. Thanks for contacting me and your comments. Alaney2k (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to join the discussion on diacritics here.

Cheers LarRan (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not understand why, but there's an actual reason behind the process for page moves. We need to have documented proof on the talk page that the necessary research has actually been done to ensure that the name really is unique — it's not enough to just do a Google search and then immediately move the page yourself, because we need documented evidence that the proper procedure was followed.

I'm not making up rules just to mess with your head — there's an actual process which was determined by a consensus of users to answer concerns and issues that have actually been raised in past discussions. You weren't here for some of the past fireworks around page moves, so you may not be familiar with some of the background — but please understand that there are very good reasons why we follow the process that we do, and don't just allow people to move pages arbitrarily. We need to be able to point to an actual documented record of the consensus that established the validity of a page move if somebody challenges it in the future — any user can move it back if we can't prove that there was an actual discussion to establish a consensus for the page move.

And the reason your listing kept disappearing from WP:RM is because that page is generated automatically by a bot looking for pages with the {{move}} template on them — entries don't get added to it manually. And also, by the way, the Canadian naming process doesn't require listing at RM at all — except in potentially controversial circumstances it only requires listing at WP:CWNB, because in most cases we don't need input from anybody outside the Canadian contingent. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see why you want to add the team captains list back into the main articles, they were removed from both New Jersey Devils and Calgary Flames as part of their Featured article candidacy as the overabundance of lists in the articles were viewed as a negative. This was moved, at one point, to an article on "notable people" associated with the team and finally to the players article where it can be given a bit more prominence - i.e.: the Flames players article highlights all captains, and has a paragraph of prose regarding the team captain history. In my view, there is greater reason to keep the list on a child article than on the main. Regards, Resolute 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captains are noted and highlighted in the list itself. And personally, I don't find it extremely important. Not near the same as the current roster or the franchise leaders. Resolute 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picky they are, but I agree with them in this case. Updating the Flames players list is something on my todo list, and making the captains stand out better is part of that. Resolute 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone re-added it to the Devils article at some point, I guess. Truth is, almost every NHL team article requires a lot of work. We don't really have a great standard at this point, just "do what we've done". Resolute 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the process is WP:BRD, bold, revert discuss. You boldly added it, I reverted, your next step is to seek consensus. Not to continually revert me to get your own way. I'm not going to edit war with you right now, but frankly, if you can't build a consensus for the inclusion, I will re-remove the section at a later date. Resolute 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the captains being listed on all 30 NHL team articles (and the former NHL team articles). In fact, I prefer the 30 NHL team articles being as consistant as possible. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your bravery, RandyS. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wowsers, you've changed it. That was gutsy. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better that you've changed it. If I had? there would've been a rumble. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it lasted for 'bout 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you wanna do with the minor formatting changes is fine with me. I'm just trying to get things uploaded quickly, since too many recent coaches have been left out. Usually I just copy/paste from the first year (which, of course, has the team name as a link) and expand out from there Mr. Vitale (talk)

It was done right in the first place, thanks. If you have any information that "Daniel Grant" is the most recognized English language usage for the hockey player instead of "Danny Grant," feel free to present it. This was done in defiance of WP:NAME and "Daniel" should never have been used.  Ravenswing  16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mate im aware that your not a fan of the same season, same color format but do you have to change everyone you come across? i accept it both ways so isnt it right that you could compromise too? Triggerbit (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough mate i didnt really look at the dates. as long as we on the same page. Triggerbit (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not go by Alexander, he goes by Alex. His full name is listed on the page and is sufficient itself. Please do not re-direct from Alex. {Saint0wen (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Could you kindly explain why you edited the heading "Criminal History" to say "Criminal history," with the lowercase "H?" Durwoodie (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the redirects you have had to do, I am suprised I didn't get some sort of warning for it. To cut a long story short, I was just changing the link to read the default, I've done it before with other links, Goaltender and Deutsche Eishockey Liga being two for instance, slightly overdid though and I'm sorry but I'm learning all the time and have been advised not to fix redirects unless they are broken. Raphie (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I send this you DID give me a warning after all! No probs I've learned a lesson today. Raphie (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have been adding this to a number of players. Please remember to ensure that they played on a national senior team. I caught a few changes tonight that you made where they only played on the junior team. Consensus was to limit this field to senior teams, you can see this on the Template page where it lists what each field is for. -DJSasso (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you adding the minor-league AHL teams to the infoboxes, this is something I have never seen until now and you have been doing all of themBeast from da East (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Beast from da East. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You should know well enough not to attack other users. Be civil.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Naoki Sano has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability found in Google News Archive - all mentions (as "Naoki Sano", "Sano Naoki" and "佐野直喜") are very minor ("Sano beat xyz", about 14 between all 3 variations of the name) and no significant coverage exists.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Naoki Sano, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naoki Sano. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, you claim that the IP above was banned. Can you point me to the account of his that was banned? If I can see that account's contributions and the block history, I can block the IP and revert the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Bans are something more severe than blocks. A banned user who returns to edit may be blocked on sight and have all his edits reverted. A previously-blocked user is not subject to such automatic sanctions. However, given the fact that the same IP was making the changes a few days ago, I've given an immediate final warning to the IP, and I'm monitoring the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: alt text like that is needed and useful for visually impaired readers: please see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. For more on the alt text for that particular article, please see the discussion of that very image's alt text at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roberto Luongo/archive1 Eubulides (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit on Erik Johnson? All I did was add his 08/09 and current 09/10 statistics. That section hadn't been updated in two seasons. Habfan29 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you keep getting rid of the hard work I put into keeping up with the Spitfires current season? It doesn't need to be redirected to the main Windsor Spitfires page. It's two different things Thetoast84

yeah fair enough.. never crossed my mind, i wasn't even aware! Triggerbit (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which/What sources do you use for ice hockey player career statistics? I use eliiteprospects.com], but they don't have +/- information. Tell me please! Heymid (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that many people write "Wing" when you revert it back to "wing". Are you sure that it is "wing" instead of "Wing"? /Heymid (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, George South, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George South. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided an explanation for this revert, in which I think it was made in good faith by a new IP address. I am currently bringing up a discussion here which you can feel free to participate if you need to. Minimac (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Man, that's why I need to go to bed when I'm tired. Thanks for the revert on a "my bad". Keep it up! Jmlk17 23:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this could be worth marking as minor fixes. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering if I should write "Left wing" or "Left winger" in the infobox for ice hockey player(s)? Which one would you rather pick? /HeyMid (contributions) 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've followed suit and edited the rest of the Oilers roster. It's good to standardise. :)

--Russ Jericho (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. You two must be bored. I don't know if even I the ultimate wiki gnome would spend my time removing those. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why they post signs saying not to feed the gnomes... You guys do strange things! Resolute 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked at Tim Brent's stats here [11], and it looks like the edits you reversed were correct. Thought I would check with you before I reverted. Do you have a reason to think those web site stats are incorrect? Thanks! Susfele (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Good to know. Thanks! Susfele (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you take McQuaid's nickname down? Everyone uses that in Boston. Also on TV. What's the deal? If it was fine for 7 months why now? 129.63.241.135 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) KG72[reply]

The article Simon Gysbers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Undrafted minor league hockey player has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolovis (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Bobby Orr article.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a keyboard shortcut for the —? Because mine only has a -. Rycecube57 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rycecube57 (talk • contribs)

Re: your edit [12] and revert of my edit [13] on Steve Yzerman, the Manual of Style states, per Wikipedia:YEAR#years that "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." If there is another reason for using the shortened year style, please use the edit summary or leave a note on a talk page. — MrDolomite • Talk 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL lists it correctly. [14][15] --Izzygood (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year ranges.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please note the above, again, in response to several recent edits you have made. The date range, 1999-2000 (for example), should be left as is and not shortened to 1999-00--this is incorrect. Nubzor (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RandySavageFTW, since you do alot of editing to the hockey articles, I figured you would probably know more about this than some others. I just reverted a couple of edits [16], [17] where the editor is adding all of a players OHL and Junior B. Hockey teams to the infobox in the former teams slot. Since I can't find other articles that do this, was I right in thinking that the former teams slot is supposed to be for pro teams not OHL? If I'm wrong, I'd like to know so that I can fix the edits before I end up getting myself in trouble here for reverting those edits. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Heartbreak Express‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heartbreak Express until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

And Randy Savage never fucked the World (I guess your nickname is a joke).--Sismarinho (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gilliam. Your recent edit to the page Liberace appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Gilliam (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dehr. Since you had some involvement with the Dehr redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tnotb. Since you had some involvement with the Tnotb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]