This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 12 February 2010 (→Re: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:26, 12 February 2010 by Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) (→Re: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)OnLive
Dude, I happen to agree with you about the OnLive edit, it's uncited speculation. However, you are doing yourself no favours by failing to explain your reasons for the edit and continuously blanking your comments page. You have nothing to hide, and your edit makes sense. The issue is one of explanation and openness. Cheers MrMarmite (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3RR warning
You've actually violated it already, but here's the warning anyway:
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at World Wrestling Entertainment. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
And please do not accuse me of being a sock/meat puppet. I noticed your accusation of Wrestlinglover on my watchlist and was curious. -- Scorpion 02:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Re
For wrestling companies criticism would be better directed for business models and storylines, rather than them using mock combat as a means for entertainment. Criticism of mock combat are better suited for the main professional wrestling article, since WWE is one of hundreds of wrestling companies. Also, for an industry such as pro wrestling criticism is common and has played a role is several companies futures. Currently, the term fake is incorrect, since chair shots, tables and ladder spots, etc can not be faked. They are legit, though that may not have as much force behind them if it was an actual competitive sport. There are several instances when matches have non-scripted spots that are legit as they can be. Though your edits are under good faith, they are a bit biased so I'll perform one more undo if no one has already. It would be in your best interest to not revert and instead discuss, since you have already violated the 3RR.--WillC 02:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)