Jump to content

User talk:TheBoss1022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, TheBoss1022 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

January 2012

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tijuana Toads has been reverted.
Your edit here to Tijuana Toads was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://bakertoons.blogspot.com/2011/09/texas-toads.html=Baking) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WCW World Championship

[edit]

I see you've redeleted the bit about Jericho being the last champ. Your edit summaries suggest you may have some sort of point, but it's not immediately clear. Before making any changes, please use the Talk Page to elaborate on your point and discuss with other editors. Exact quotes and times from the DVDs would be helpful. All sources I've seen treat the WCW Championship like any other other unified title (that is, it ceases to exist on its own). In a way, WWE Champion CM Punk could be seen as the WCW, Hardcore and European champion (all previously unified). But the consensus among promotions, journalists and fans is that these titles no longer exist independently. Just parts of a bigger whole, like how a cake isn't eggs or flour anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many titles have been unified only to be separated later. The Intercontinental and US titles are prime examples. A better fitting case for the WCW/WHC championship took place in the late 80s when the AWA World title was unified with the WCCW title. The two titles together became known as the "Unified" World championship (just like the WWF & WCW titles became known as the "Undisputed" World Championship). At first two belts were used to represent both titles, then a "Unified" belt was commissioned to represent both (just like in WWE). But the titles were separated when Lawler (champion at the time) failed to defend the title in AWA territories and was stripped of the AWA World title but retained the WCCW title - now renamed the USWA title. (much like when Brock Lesnar became exclusive to Smackdown and thus failed to defend the title on RAW as was required - he was then stripped of the WCW/WHC title while retaining the WWE title). In both cases the linage of both titles continued. TheBoss1022

When the US title merged with the IC, those who subsequently won the IC title did not become US Champions. Same as when the IC and the WHC combined. Those titles just stopped existing on their own, till they were reinstated. I'm not that familiar with Lawler's situation, but Lesnar was never stripped of anything, and his title was not split in two. The WHC Bischoff gave to Triple H looked like the WCW title, maybe the same physical belt, but was a brand new championship. All reliable title histories acknowledge this, even WWE's own. Likewise, all histories say Jericho was the final WCW WHC. It's OK to personally believe otherwise. I keep track of who unofficially holds defunct MMA titles. But on Wikipedia, we have to go with the mainstream views on things. WEC, Pride, ECW and WCW are officialy dead, and so are their titles. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that in this case both championships were continually recognized. At first they even continued to still use both title belts to represent both championships. Then a entirely new belt was commissioned to represent "both" championships. On the DVD "The History of the WWE Championship" (which has nothing do do with the WCW/WHC title linage) Jim Ross even mentions that the new title belt was to represent "both" titles. If the WCW/WHC title were just absorbed by the WWF/E title then the championship would have been represented by only the WWF/E belt (as the case when the titles you mentioned were unified). And the champions that followed would have only been referred to as WWF/E championd and not "Undisputed" champions. WWE.com remains the ONLY WWE sorce that says the linage does not continue. But that site also fails to mention Anotion Inoki's WWE title win nor does it say that CM Punk's title reign continued after he defeated Cena. So if WWE.com is the be all end all then ALL of wikipedia's list must represent that and only that in which case there is no purpose to have them on wikipedia. WWE.com represents kayfabe Wikipedia represents history. In today's information age what ACTUALLY happened trumps what "officially" happened. TheBoss1022

WWE.com is definitely not the only reliable source the wrestling Wikiproject uses, or even the most authoritative (Wikipedia generally prefers independent, secondary sources). See this list of common sources. Even those that mention the "phantom" title changes WWE ignores agree that Jericho was the last WCW champ. The lineage (not "linage") is well established, and you'll need some good sources to change that here. For starters, some exact quotes or times from the DVD backing your claim.
As for opinions on the two belts, I think that was just a visual prop to emphasize the "Undisputed Champion" thing. Jericho looked pretty badass with the two biggest belts in North American wrestling (till Lucy the bulldog showed up, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times on the DVD? What time do you think? What time have we been talking about? The period of the "Undisputed" championship. DUH! Just look at the champter menu on the WHC history DVD. It's clearly listed as a specific period in the titles history. And as for quotes, I have said many time that on the WWE title history DVD that Jim Ross ststes that the Undisputed tite was represented by two belts until a single belt was commissioned to represent "BOTH" titles. It's there for all to see and cannot be edited. TheBoss1022

I believe what Hulk is meaning by "times on the DVD" is providing information such as "22 minutes and 34 seconds into disc 2, Jim Ross states that..." (at least that is how I interpret his comment). Regardless, given the number of people who have chimed in on this issue I would recommend that you do not re-add any information until more discussion is done, no matter how strongly you feel. To elaborate on what Hulk said, Wikipedia is not perfect and you can think otherwise about some of the things you see on here, but the overwhelming view on this is that the WCW World Heavyweight Championship is not the same as the one being defended today. HidyHoTim (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant. Easier to jump to a specific time than skim through the whole disc. Also easier to evaluate a claim when we have the exact words, not a paraphrase. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the information mutliple times where WWE recognizes that the lineage continues. You have yet to show a single piece of evidence that shows that the WWE's official DVD (and thus the actual video evidence of the events) are untrue.

To be specified On "The History of the WWE Championship" Disk three chapter 5, Jim Ross startes that after the unification two title belts were used to represent the champion until a single belt was commissioned "to represent both titles". Did you see the quotes? Did you read where it says BOTH titles? It can only represent BOTH titles if both are still active. If this is not true explain why WWE would commission a DVD with such context?

Would it kill you to quote the entire sentence? From the sound of it, he means "represent" in the way that a flag represents a country, and may be talking about the belt design. It does contain elements of the WCW title belt, so represents its history in that way. But the title is defunct. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also on "The History of the World Heavyweight Championship" DVD disk one. The last three chapters are devoted to explaining the lineage. "The Undisputed Championship" explains how the titles were unified. "World Championship Returns" explains that the title was "brought back" (as a single title) as a apposed to being a new title. "Legacy Lives" shows Triple H stating that WWE recognizes that the WHC is the same title as having been held by Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes and Harley Race (WCW also tried to claim the NWA lineage). While WWE does not own the NWA title and thus can't legally make this claim (regarding the NWA title), it does show that they recognize the WHC and WCW World titles as one and the same.TheBoss1022

WWE has also claimed Andre the Giant was 7'5" and wrestled Hogan before 93,000+ fans. The IC title came from a Brazilian tournament. Kane is Paul Bearer's son. Gotta take a Triple H promo (even if he's in "shoot mode") with a grain of salt. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not explain why actual undeniable video footage exists of events that supposedly never happened according to you. (TheBoss1022 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What events? Did someone win the WCW title after Jericho? Also, I just noticed you're claiming (or claiming WWE claims, anyway) that the WWE Championship belt "represents" the WCW title, but the World Heavyweight Championship and the WCW World Heavweight Championship are "one and the same". Which is it? Both? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The letters "WCW" were dropped from the title in November of 2001. This was before the unification took place. Just like the the CCE title has been the WWWF and WWF title the linage stayed intact through the name change.

So everyone who has held the "Undisputed" title or the "WHC" held the title formally known as the WCW World Heavyweight title.

And BTW. How do you not understand what "represent" means? All titles are represented by belt, trophies, plaques etc. The "title" isn't the belt, the title is the rank of "CHAMPION". The belt simply represents who the champion is. Af far as the design not being 100%... belts change all the time. Did Hulk Hogan hold five different titles during his first WWF World title reign because he used 5 different belts? Of course not. Saying "well the belt has changed" is a ridiculous argument. Heck, Lex Luger, Ron Simmons, Vader, Sting and Flair all used a completely different belt to represent the WCW World title. Does that mean they held a different championship? Of course not. (TheBoss1022 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

So the WHC and the WWE title (formerly the Undisputed title) belt both represent the WCW championship, directly? That is, CM Punk and Alberto del Rio are both the WCW champion now? The other meaning of "represent" I'm talking about is the first one here. Not the second. The belt design brings WCW to mind, is not a symbol of the champion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The WCW and WHC are the same title. It just went through a name change. Just as the WWWF/WWF/WWE title did. The "Undisputed" title represented both the WWF/E and the WCW/WHC. The titles were separated when Brock Lesnar refused to defend on RAW (defending on both brands was a requirement when holding the Undisputed title) and Eric Bischoff stripped him of the WCW/WHC title (leaving Lesnar with only the WWE title) and awarded it to Triple H.

I don't remember anyone saying anything about splitting the Undisputed Championship. Sounds like a conclusion you jumped to yourself, to make sense of it all. Prove me wrong, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not about belt design (although the big gold belt design was used to purposely get fans to make the visual connection) and if the belt dosen't represent the champion then who does it represent? Why then does only the champion have one? (TheBoss1022 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure how I can be clearer about how "represent" can mean different things, or what the first definition says. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To further add to what Hulk stated, Triple H's page states under the "Birth of a Title" section that after Brock Lesnar became exclusive to SmackDown, Eric Bischoff awarded Triple H with "a brand new championship, represented by a prize carrying plenty of heritage," showing that the WCW and WHC are not the same title that "just went through a name change" as you claim. HidyHoTim (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. How can a brand new title have plenty of heritage? Here's yet another official WWE source that says the titles are the same, the official wwe history of championsh magazine. http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/62365_465692423491547_947930717_n.jpg

Notice how it claims that when Triple H was awarded the WHC he was given the renamed WCW world title. http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/62365_465692420158214_1632153988_n.jpg So I have three official WWE historical sources (two DVDs and a magazine) to your one source (WWE.com). The majority of official sources say the titles are one and the same. At the very least there is enough evidence to restore the Undisputed title history. (TheBoss1022 (talk))

This magazine is again using the word "championship" to mean "belt", like Bischoff did when he handed it (physically) to Triple H. And please pay attention. I've given you four sources in a bulleted list above, not one. Even if the magazine indisputably claimed the titles were the same, it would be an exceptional claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've given a bunch of mark sites as examples but only one official WWE source (wwe.com) where as I have given three official sources (four if you count the footage from RAW). And who are you to say what someone meant? If they meant belt why didn't they say belt? And on EVERY source? And you still have yet to show prof that Jim Ross was lying (as you claim) when he stated that the Undisputed belt (see? that time he said belt) represented both championships. (TheBoss1022 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'm done arguing it. If you can't see how you're wrong yet, I'm wasting my time. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to prove me (and the WWE) incorrect. (TheBoss1022 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

January 2013

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions, you may be blocked from editing.

All reliable sources follow the same title history, and treat the WHC as a new title, and the Undisputed Title as a single title. It was fine to bring it up and make the bold edits in the beginning, but now you've been proven wrong by several objecting editors. It's time to drop it. You're free to believe in whatever lineage you wish, but Wikipedia is based on what sources explicitly say, not the conclusions reached by one editor. Please find another, productive way to use your time here. If you continue to push the issue, you may very well be blocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia; "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." So by taking down the list it is actually YOU who are disrupting progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. (TheBoss1022 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Adding inaccurate information is not an improvement. Removing it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it inaccurate when the same information is on the WWE's official DVDs and magazines? (TheBoss1022 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by the Monkees, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Price and Stranger Things Have Happened (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fascism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Your edits were also a violation of WP:NPOV. I'll also point out that dictionary definitions are not official. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And your claim that 'The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties in opposition to the Democratic party' is ludicrous. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by the Monkees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Meyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by the Monkees, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maurice Williams and David White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by the Monkees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard B. Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by the Monkees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cripple Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheBoss1022&oldid=1048254444"