User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive4

Image copyright problem with Image:Crophairstyle.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Crophairstyle.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Price is Right - Syndicated/Nighttime

You're really splitting hairs with that definition. The section header is titled "Syndicated Productions" but the TV info box says "The Nighttime Price is Right." Whether or not the 1994 version what colloquially titled "Nighttime" has no bearing on its similarity to the other two syndicated versions of the show aired in the evening.

With regards to disruptive edits, let's take a look back and see which of us "in the past" has been blocked[1] from editing, and which of us hasn't. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, though. "The Nighttime Price Is Right" and "The New Price Is Right" from 1994 are separate shows, with separate pages. While The New Price Is Right aired at night in some markets, it was never known as The Nighttime Price Is Right. Your revert of my edit was improper. Don't bring up my prior bad acts to justify you being wrong. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearls Before Swine

Thank you for your interest in the Pearls Before Swine article. My edits have been to remove unsourced material per the wikipedia policy of verfiability: "unsourced material may be challenged and removed". I encourage you to provide content from reliable sources and encourage other editors to do the same! However, additional unsourced trivia and original research is not needed in this already plot bloated and under-sourced article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RedPen, but some of your edits are getting unnecessarily nitpicky and that's why I sent the message.

Possibly unfree Image:Crophairstyle.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Crophairstyle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 08:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

The revamp at the "Premise" section of The Steve Wilkos Show was done to enhance how professional the article is. The way the article was written before the revamp was unprofessional so it is best it stay the way i did it. Mythdon (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the page. Your defense of your edits is proving that you believe you do. Please consider the sandbox. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to own the page. I was just trying to make the article better by making the section written more professional. Nobody else is currently trying to revert what i did. The only person currently with an issue with the revamp is you if not anybody else. Mythdon (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, you didn't do that. You hacked an article to a stub for no reason other than your own personal preferences. That plus the fact that "it is best it stay the way I did it" leads me to believe that it's a huge WP:OWN violation. You're wrong here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my "it is best it stay the way i did it" statement. Maybe i should have said "i feel it is better the way i did it". I still believe the previous version was unprofessionally written and used bad grammer witch is why the revamp was done to begin with. Mythdon (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate: there was nothing wrong with the page except for it being cluttered. "I feel it is better the way I did it" is even more of an OWN problem than the other statement, because it does not even come close to a neutral point of view. The only reason I stopped reverting was because of 3RR, and the fact that you refuse to listen. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my "i feel it is best the way i did it" statements. I was trying to improve the article for readers rather than my personal preferences. Nobody else is reverting the change witch implies consensus with other editors (not including you). Mythdon (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's "which." Second of all, the page is not a high traffic page, so the consensus theory is shot. Thirdly, if you were trying to improve the article for readers then you would not have turned the article into a stub. You violated OWN, time to own up to it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say on this, but just remember that i was just trying to improve the article. End of discussion. Mythdon (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in doing so you violated WP:OWN. NOW end of discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce bank

Could you comment at Talk:Commerce_Bancorp#Separate_articles? MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vince's Devils. 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. D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSRP

From Jayski:

MSRP will remain a separate organization from the newly formed Prism Motorsports Cup team, also owned by Randy Humphrey and Phil Parsons --D-Day (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Card Sharks

The edit you made is missing a predicate. "On the CBS version five match wins became the maximum, but topping the network's winnings limit of $50,000" should be followed by something like "also retired the champion." Sottolacqua (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

(1)I did not threaten you, I warned you. (2)For one, show me a Reliable source for this information, as when I expanded the list my reliable source did not state that.--TRU CO 02:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Sorry for the inconvenience.--TRU CO 03:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSC

There is nothing in the Shawn Michaels bio on WWE.com to contradict the source for the HC title as an alternate (namely Kane's info). HBK's page confirms the Euro title and the existence of the Grand Slam. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The WWE says Morales is a TCC, this confirms that the thing exists. It says HBK is a GSC, this confirms the three original belts and the euro title make up this honour. It also confirms that the WHC can be used as an alternate. Angle confirms the SD Tag titles can be used for TCC and GSC. Kane confirms the HC title. True this is not mentioned on every single bio for every single title, but these examples define who to include, not who to exclude. As all the sources (listed at the bottom of the pages) confirm these parameters there is no reason to cut out large chunks of the page just because the WWE does not follow our standards. In fact in truth only Morales, HBK and HHH should be listed as TCC and HBK, HHH and Angle as GCS going by your measure. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The GSC once included the HC title, and so it still does, even if WWE attempt to redefine it now. As each of the titles included has a source, thus they stay in. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point. Go on WWE.com and find me the winner of the 2004 Royal Rumble. We do not rewrite history because WWE.com says so. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no straw man. Each title: WWE, WHC, WWE Tag, WTT, IC, Euro, HC, has a source saying that a wrestler holding the variations from each tier is part of the TCC and then the GSC. Therefore even if today the WWE insists that the title, as of today, no longer includes any one of those titles then it does not matter. We can use WWE.com and other sources to add titles, but we do not rewrite history to reflect a statement made today, otherwise we could not list Chris Benoit as ever winning the RR04 nor could we call any former title WWF. The list stays long, if you want to shorten it then you need to change the current consensus. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, since the last exchange Oakster has clarified a source on the page, and he has also reverted you. Make the argument with him, or take it to the project page.

The sources clearly show the following; The Triple Crown was defined with Pedro Morales WWF title, WWF IC, WWF Tag. Then HBK expanded it to GSC, to include the Euro. Then Kurt Angle expanded it to include the SD Tag titles. Then HBK and HHH expanded it to include the WHC. So Tier 1 (WHC, WWE) Tier 2 (TT and SD TT) Tier 3 (IC not US) and Tier 4 (Euro). Then Kane expanded it to include HC on Tier 4. If anyone has any combination of those seven titles then they are a Grand Slam Champion. Even if tomorrow WWE.com were to announce the TCC and GSC never happened it would not change a thing.

The point about Benoit is that WWE.com is not 100% reliable. They do change their minds (did the Rockers ever beat the Hart Foundation, no for about a decade then yes once Bret Hart left and they rewrote history). AT the moment the WWE do not acknowledge the existence of the 2004 RR winner, so does this mean we erase it from Benoit's article? No. The expanded definition for the GSC and TCC still stand, and as HBK never even wrestled for WWF/WWE while the HC title was active I have no idea why his bio would ever talk about the HC title. (He was retired from March 1998 to SummerSlam 2002 the exact length of time the HC title was active.)

If you have a problem with my revert then gain consensus for your view of the events, at the project talk page or ask Oakster why he agreed with my revert. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First take off the caps lock, second this word; "ANYMORE." is the word which is wrong. There is no "anymore" on Wikipedia. If the HC title was part of the GSC once then it still is today. I suggest you take this up with the project. I am done with this. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea dude, first bring a source that it was removed from the Grand Slam. A real source from WWE.com that states Booker T and Kane are not Grand Slam champions. That the Hardcore title has been removed from the Grand Slam. Plus bring a source, just in-case, that it was never apart of the Grand Slam. There is a source in the article that states it is part of the Grand Slam. Continue to disagree will result in informing an administrator. We have a reliable source that states it is apart of the Slam. A source must be presented, not your opinion.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the bottom of the GSC page Darrenhusted (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article that is referred to in that link: [2].--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived page plus non-WP:RS? Come on. Kane's bio on WWE.com makes no mention of his being a grand slam champion, therefore the Hardcore Championship cannot be considered to be part of the Grand Slam. Shawn Michaels' page makes mention of his Grand Slam with the European Championship. Ergo...--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, half the people who are Grand Slam Champions have no mention on their bios. You are wrong there, they are both reliable sources, and even if the second doesn't fall under reliable source to some expectations even when it is a copy of the WWF.com article, the first states he is a Grand Slam champion.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT WWE no longer recognizes Hardcore Champions who have not won the European Championship to be Grand Slam Champions anymore. The second page is a fansite, which almost always fails to fall under the RS category. The first does, but like I said, it's changed. Kane is not a Grand Slam Champion anymore. Why is that so hard for people to understand? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that states he isn't? Or that WWE doesn't anymore? They don't even mention on anyone's bio besides two (HBK and HHH). Jeff Hardy doesn't even have it stated and he is the most recent. Plus he won all the titles: Hardcore, European, IC, World Tag, and WWE. You need a source that he isn't. There is a source, that is final. Unless WWE give an article full of all the Grand Slam champions and states it has nothing to do with it, then the hardcore title is apart of it. I don't want it to be apart of it, but there are two sources. A copy of an article from WWF.com and a web archive of WWF.com.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a source, that's final?" Awful petulant, huh? My reliable source is the definition on Shawn Michaels' bio. If WWE still considered the Hardcore Championship to be part of the grand slam something would still be noted in Kane's bio. Since it isn't, then WWE doesn't consider it. You have a fan site and an archived page, which is nothing. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they state in Hardy's page he is a Grand Slam Champion as well? Plus you are stating Original Research since they don't mention it in Kane's article that he isn't or or never was one. Because they don't mention Benoit on tv anymore am I supposed to think he doesn't exist. Archive.org is a reliable source, have you not looked at the MOS and is accepted at FAC, GAN, FLC, etc. A copy of a WWF.com page is a reliable source, it comes from WWF.com and is even stated it does. An article from WWE.com is a reliable source no matter how it is obtained. By final, I meant that without a source and just your own opinion this discussion is over. No reason to debate, when we have two sources from WWF.com and you are coming with just your opinion. Too many debates are going on that are useless and just dumb.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, man. If you and the rest refuse to see you're wrong after all this then there's no hope for me to convince you. The discussion is now over, please do not respond to this message. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]