User talk:Nakurio
Welcome
[edit]If you have anything to say go ahead but sign your post, i will usually post on your talk page to answer--Nakurio (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Miz
[edit]how add had The miz form wwe is fan of chelsea fc refrence he spoke about it on Sky Sports News on januray 27th 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikyboy87 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
[edit]
Your addition to File:Karlee Perez.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jupp Heynckes
[edit]Hi, the source you added neither says that it is an important milestone nor that only one coach has more Bundesliga matches than him. I did some googling now and have retrieved a source (unfortunately in German only) that supports your claims. --Jaellee (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Jake Carter
[edit]No problem. Whenever I see any spelling/formatting issues I feel bad to leave them there! Just makes things look better. I removed extra spaces after periods and fixed a spelling error on the page, which I see that you started. I was looking him up because I saw he is in FCW now. --Myxsoma (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah FCW has some awesome talent right now from ROH and other independents plus a few 2nd generation guys so the future looks good for WWE in my opinion. Thanks for the messages. --Myxsoma (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I added a disambiguation to Jake Carter since that was the page it goes to automatically when people searched Jake Carter. Now they get a link to your page. --Myxsoma (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Admin
[edit]I'm afraid not. Your course of action depends on what it was that was deleted. If its an article and was deleted via prod you could contest at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Depends what it is. You could also ask or it to be put into userspace. If its not by that let me know and I can direct you towards a few admins depends what it is though as obviously Fastily isn't going to be around. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is it the two you mentioned at his page and is that the exact title of the page that was deleted. It's just the first Is a disambig page and the other has never existed. What's the exact pages. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- According to the page it was deleted as a prod because it had no sources and was a biography of a living person. If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion they will be able to restore but you would need to ask for it to be put into your userspace like this User:Nakurio/Mike Dalton (wrestler) for you to work on as they won't put it back as a article until it has sources. All you have to say is you believe the person to be notable because (add your reason) and you want to work on it to source it. If you struggle i could ask for you but give it a try first.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Its been recreated i see. Ive added a ref top stop it being deleted as a BLP. You will need to improve it as its in a bad way.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- According to the page it was deleted as a prod because it had no sources and was a biography of a living person. If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion they will be able to restore but you would need to ask for it to be put into your userspace like this User:Nakurio/Mike Dalton (wrestler) for you to work on as they won't put it back as a article until it has sources. All you have to say is you believe the person to be notable because (add your reason) and you want to work on it to source it. If you struggle i could ask for you but give it a try first.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ivelisse Vélez. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Why did you edit my post? I was there at Smackdown taping this tuesday and the match was indeed announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiLLeR SiX (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome
[edit]WWE Y ECW (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
John Laurinaitis
[edit]Then another source should be found, because the link redirects to the Executive officers page, of which he is mentioned nowhere.--Tærkast (Discuss) 13:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, he's likely still storyline EVP, but he's no longer the actual EVP. It should be made clear in that list. --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks...
[edit]There was actually an argument to be made there in the guy's favor, but instead he acted the fool. Throwing around threats of legal action and bids of previous vandalism didn't do him any credit either. Papacha (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Meant the fellow that had been editing the Punk article with the Irish thing who called you out in the edit summary. But thanks again for that barnstar, the first I've ever had actually. Take care now. Papacha (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
[edit]Thanks for the Barnstar, I really appreciate it. :D I'll continue working on the article, it's not done yet! There might be more stuff to add that I might not have the time to edit in (I'm serving in the army on most weekdays), so I'd definitely appreciate your help if you could. Starship.paint (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you look at the PPV Guidelines, we'll need the buyrates and attendance. We could also use the PPVs which have reached Featured Article (FA) status such as SummerSlam (2003) as a template. I'd say I'd need to clean up the background a bit more, and I'll need to finish writing the Punk and Bryan matches for the event. Of course, there's also the aftermath, which might stretch until the next PPV for Over the Limit. That should be it. Starship.paint (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to get GA, I am not experienced in that. We should ask WillC/Wrestlinglover, he's been involved in passing many FAC and GA articles. One problem I can foresee is that the article is not complete (aftermath section... PPV buys...) Starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- In my personal opinion, that article needs a complete rewrite compared to others but that is just from a skim and what little I have read of it since the first draft. My most recent PPV is Sacrifice (2005) and it is much different than Extreme Rules. Too much bullshit is in the article. It fails several guidelines. It would have to be nominated per the instructions at WP:GAN and it may take 2 months before someone reviews it. Sacrifice has been waiting for over a month and nearly two if I can recall, as well as the 2005 TNA Super X Cup Tournament. So if it is gonna be nominated it needs alot of work for the effort. Turning Point (2008) is the most recent FA and much different than the last FA before it, Lockdown (2008). I wrote both but Lockdown has been rewritten since it passed to match more of the style of Turning Point. Lockdown was wrote like SummerSlam (mentioned above). I don't even follow the PPV guideline much anymore, because the style guide hasn't been updated in 3 years. I follow more MOS stuff and what has been discussed that works in GA reviews, FLCs, and FACs. The article appears to fail WP:FICTION, WP:Jargon, WP:IN-U, etc. There is some stuff mentioned that is not notable. I'd preferred the article to be more like Sacrifice, No Surrender (2005), Slammiversary (2005), Lockdown (2005), Lockdown 08, Sacrifice (2008), Turning Point 08, or maybe even what TNA Unbreakable looks like in my subpage. I'm pretty much the only one to do PPVs anymore. Since 2010, I believe only two WWE PPVs have went through GA: Elimination Chamber (2010) and Over the Limit (2010). The rest have been by me. The format has changed a bit. I've tried to make more of them seem more encyclopedic and follow the guidelines a bit than seeming like a tv episode. Make them more about the event. To me Extreme Rules is not like that in one way. I tried to make it seem like that in the beginning, but someone changed my original background. So in my opinion and belief, I'd take Extreme Rules and rewrite it to match the format of the ones above. Best to make yourself a subpage and do it there, away from ips and other users who will screw things up.--WillC 08:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Time is running out for me this weekend, I definitely can't make huge changes to the article this week. Sorry. Starship.paint (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good luck to you then. See you next weekend. Starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Time is running out for me this weekend, I definitely can't make huge changes to the article this week. Sorry. Starship.paint (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- In my personal opinion, that article needs a complete rewrite compared to others but that is just from a skim and what little I have read of it since the first draft. My most recent PPV is Sacrifice (2005) and it is much different than Extreme Rules. Too much bullshit is in the article. It fails several guidelines. It would have to be nominated per the instructions at WP:GAN and it may take 2 months before someone reviews it. Sacrifice has been waiting for over a month and nearly two if I can recall, as well as the 2005 TNA Super X Cup Tournament. So if it is gonna be nominated it needs alot of work for the effort. Turning Point (2008) is the most recent FA and much different than the last FA before it, Lockdown (2008). I wrote both but Lockdown has been rewritten since it passed to match more of the style of Turning Point. Lockdown was wrote like SummerSlam (mentioned above). I don't even follow the PPV guideline much anymore, because the style guide hasn't been updated in 3 years. I follow more MOS stuff and what has been discussed that works in GA reviews, FLCs, and FACs. The article appears to fail WP:FICTION, WP:Jargon, WP:IN-U, etc. There is some stuff mentioned that is not notable. I'd preferred the article to be more like Sacrifice, No Surrender (2005), Slammiversary (2005), Lockdown (2005), Lockdown 08, Sacrifice (2008), Turning Point 08, or maybe even what TNA Unbreakable looks like in my subpage. I'm pretty much the only one to do PPVs anymore. Since 2010, I believe only two WWE PPVs have went through GA: Elimination Chamber (2010) and Over the Limit (2010). The rest have been by me. The format has changed a bit. I've tried to make more of them seem more encyclopedic and follow the guidelines a bit than seeming like a tv episode. Make them more about the event. To me Extreme Rules is not like that in one way. I tried to make it seem like that in the beginning, but someone changed my original background. So in my opinion and belief, I'd take Extreme Rules and rewrite it to match the format of the ones above. Best to make yourself a subpage and do it there, away from ips and other users who will screw things up.--WillC 08:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to get GA, I am not experienced in that. We should ask WillC/Wrestlinglover, he's been involved in passing many FAC and GA articles. One problem I can foresee is that the article is not complete (aftermath section... PPV buys...) Starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
KiLLeR SiX
[edit]I'm not vandalizing anything and in case you watched Smackdown Australia it was told right there by the commentators that this match will take place. But if you want to add that like 8 hours later it's not my problem. Just want to let you know that I've been watching wrestling for over 10 years and there was nothing wrong with my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiLLeR SiX (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Just wanted to drop a line and say I'm doing the GA review for Extreme Rules (2012), which you'd previously discussed with the nominator, in case you're interested. See here for the review page. --Batard0 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
GA Thanks
[edit] | This user helped promote Extreme Rules (2012) to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Extreme Rules (2012), which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Audrey Marie
[edit]You didn't start Audrey Marie someone else did. Don't take credit for someone else's work. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You may of created it but the page was fully made by SCWA Ladies Champion --Miss X-Factor (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Nakurio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)