User talk:JDC808

		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 talkedits 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]