User talk:Dilbaggg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Dilbaggg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WWE history

My version of WWE history was better. Yours has too much trivial info. John Cena was the defining the superstar of the PG Era. And my Reality and New Era were more accurate.(MisterJay123 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

MisterJay123 That is not my edits, those are well sourced information added by various editors over the years, you have made nearly 100 edits in one day, all of which are un sourced based on your personal judgement seems like serious disruptive issues to me and discuss on article talk page not mine. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you recently removed content from Drew McIntyre without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. StaticVapor message me! 08:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this, I have discussed the matter on your talk page, Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:6ullga

• 6ullga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Dilbaggg. I noticed your AIV complaint about this editor. If he was reported at AIV before do you have a link? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes EdJohnston see [1] Dilbaggg (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have already warned once, if action is inappropriate at the moment, I suggest another user please warn if they confirm vandalism. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm looking forward to User:6ullga's answer to the complaint. I notice six more deletions of content since you notified him again on 22 April. I've left an admin warning. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, cheers to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Super ShowDown (2019). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. StaticVapor message me! 02:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

StaticVapor what really is violating npov is you claiming the event as negative reception without any claim that it was totally negative. It is you who is adding personal view, cite a source that claims its entirely negative. But since you are a senior editor I wont dispute with you, but still claiming that the event received negative as opposed to mixed to negative reception is just invalid and source less as three matches Balor-Almas, Usos-Revival and HHH-Orton were actually praised. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one that added that sentence, it has been there for a few days now. So I am not adding my own personal view. When you change content without providing sources, instead just saying "no it recieved mixed reviews!", that is adding your own personal analysis. The reviews in the article clearly detail negative reception. StaticVapor message me! 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, What Are You You Talking About?

"Do not remove sourced information" -

On May 27, 2019 episode of Raw, WWE superstar Sami Zayn cut a promo about WWE's new rival wrestling promotion All Elite Wrestling, making it the first time a whole promo was cut about an active rival promotion since the fall of WCW.

What exactly do you think "[citation needed]" means? It means that it's not sourced.

There is a difference between mentioning and cutting a promo. - You

"You could have asked me about AEW *gasps*" is hardly "cutting a whole promo." Not any more so than "I heard TNA was hiring" and even less so than "I'm the only reason for some Total Nonstop Action." The only person editing based on a personal opinion is yourself bud. 03:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MarioFan78 The first part is well sourced don't cover up with fake claim it is a reportable offence, the second part is what needs citation and I agreed to keep it out. The first part is agreed upon a well sourced content, check WP:PW/RS . Next time understand before BS claims and one more time you remove a sourced content I will report you. Leave that to senior editors like User:Galatz. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

For your information, I have been editing on Wikipedia for almost 10 years so your "bully the new guy" shtick isn't going to work. Secondly, you might want to check out Wikipedia:3RR before threatening to report other editors because I'm not the one violating any guidelines. MARIO^Fan78 20:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, your first edit was 5 months ago so you really don't have room to talk about being inexperienced. MARIO^Fan78 20:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MarioFan78 I apologies for that attitude, I thought you were new, regardless am satisfied with the current version of the article. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:53,, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

History of WWE

The reason for my revert had nothing to do with personal views. The sources listed were reliable, yes. However, the content presented went far beyond what was cited. As I explained in my edit summary, talent defection and counter-programming were presented as theories rather than backed up by the sources listed. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 20:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay....

Um, no. I removed a quote from the article that used vulgar language about an otherwise PG show. I feel that is completely and perfectly warranted. Report me for trying to improve Wikipedia? Be my guest, buddy. Multiple counts of vandalism?? Where? I have better things to do than go around vandalizing Wikipedia of all things. Why on Earth would I do something so lame and boring.

Fake senior editor badge? Try me. First of all, they are absolutely meaningless and in no way constitute "vandalism" (thanks for stalking my page though). Secondly, I earned that badge and that is the status I warrant. No more, no less. So go on then. AEWFanboy^talk 23:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

PS, that "past warning" was from Galatz of all people, lol. He simply does not like me, never has. Probably never will. He's a control freak and not many editors in the wrestling Wikipedia community actually like him. So changing anything he adds (however warranted) results in him sending warnings... AEWFanboy^talk 23:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:AEWFanboy all right then man, just don't remove sourced information again then you can edit as you please. Remember WP:RS. Cheers.. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because something with a source gets added to a page, doesn't mean it's forced to be on said page for the rest of eternity. You are free to remove anything you wish if you don't feel like it belongs, and I personally do not feel that a review that uses vulgar language belongs on an article about a PG SHOW. If you reverted my edit solely for that reason (removing a source), then maybe next time try to consider why, because that is not the same thing as vandalism. Not at all. Thoughts? I'd like to know why you feel so strongly about this one sentence that you'd report me for removing it. No shade, just an honest question man.. AEWFanboy^talk 19:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerning WrestleMania 36

This is from https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/wrestlemania-36 :

"Drew McIntyre conquers The Beast to claim the WWE Title at WrestleMania 36 Part 2

WrestleMania 36 Part 2 was truly historic as Drew McIntyre reigned supreme over Brock Lesnar to capture his first WWE Championship, Charlotte Flair bested Rhea Ripley to reclaim the NXT Women’s Championship, “The Fiend” Bray Wyatt took John Cena into the darkness in a Firefly Fun House Match and Edge outlasted Randy Orton in a brutal Last Man Standing Match."

Now do you believe that WWE is calling it "WrestleMania 36 Part 1" and "WrestleMania Part 2"?

Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC) `

User:Mt.FijiBoiz well if its acknowledged by ~WWE themselves I have no problem. While Wrestling articles breaking wp:or is a big issue, this may not have been one of them but I request you editors .to remain vigilant. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be interested in:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)

looks tedious, but ok, going for it then. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Nikkimaria. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria I have not attacked other editors, don't think I don't know the rules, go take it to AIV if you must, I am allowed to point your flaws. Let admins judge it themselves, never attacked you but showed your malicious misrepresentation editing, they can check your edit history and verify. Next time you attempt to edit war I will give you the warning. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't post this message, Drmies did - they are an admin who has judged your comments for themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of WWE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Booker T (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) 06:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the IP address at AIV

I am not trying to hound you on this, so this is the last thing I will say about it: I am not unilaterally deciding this issue, another admin declined your second report just before it was removed by a bot here as well.

And honestly, just because I personally am the one to take the time to respond to your report twice doesn't mean I'm the only one who saw it (as shown by the above edit), but also there are a lot of admins who review AIV. If any of them thought this was an AIV-actionable report in the several hours it was up before bot removal each time, then they would have blocked the IP already.

You don't need to "have time" for ANI, since there's no requirement for you to participate in the discussion beyond your initial report. If it matters enough to you to keep posting at AIV, then take the same amount of time and just copy and paste what you already put on AIV over to ANI and let a different set of people look at it. Or, drop the subject, up to you. –Darkwind (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Refusal to Allow Correct Reality Era Timeframe Information

You are being reported for creating an article (The Reality Era) as well as refusing to allow an edit to History of WWE that has false information with your own personal views which are in direct contradiction to WWE themselves as well as another reputable source (Sportster) 68.196.72.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

68.196.72.173 go ahead and make false report, you are the one not complying with WP:RS and citing reddit as a source which is not allowed. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Been a while I still think 2013 should be the start with Daniel Bryan winning the WWEC title and starting the Authority feud the same year. Many WP:RS still claim 2013-2016. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of The Reality Era for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reality Era is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reality Era until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Czello 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Re

Yes, the information isn't relevant to the article. As other users said, the article have a little bit problem of PROMOTIONAL. Can you explain me why a match being voted by WWE ITSELF is notable? A few years ago, PWI gave the Banks vs Bayley the match of the year award, that's notable. Being selected by WWE it's not, just promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree as per WP:PW/RS guidlines wwe.com has been cited as a reliable source. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

But isn't notable. Its WWE givig a recognition to itself. The article just promotes what WWE wants --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

All right HHH Pedrigree agreeing with you, but the WHC (2002) and WWE (1963) unification in 2013 is historically significant, so don't remove that one, adding only that one back and removing my incorrect warning to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is, the article is too focused on Storylines and kayfabe. No metion about, for example, Saudi Arabia, creation of AEW, creation of NXT UK... insetad, we have retirements, combacks, title changes. There is a big difference bewteen the first eras and the last eras. The first ones are about the company, the latest are about the programming. Okey, agree the title unification is noatble, include that. Sometimes, I take the trimming too far. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of WWE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Booker T.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

PA's

You need to read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats what you are violating,see WP:DRR/3 where I took the matter. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

You need to read wp:editwar very very carefully.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

hmm. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached". Make a case at talk and get wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion decline

Please note that I have declined your request for a third opinion at WP:3O because, as implied by the name, there are already more than two editors involved in the discussion. 3O is explicitly for discussions where a third opinion is desired. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC

You really need to read wp:rfc more carefully, so far you have launched two. Both of which have been poorly executed and very biased.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You can help fellow editors fix format, Slatersteven. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact you have (at least twice) launched biased RFC's, I may not be able to fix it as I am not sure an involved party should alter other users RFC's, and you can read policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I have not doned anything biased, I just did a "request for comment", and like everyone who RfCs added my comment too, how can requestig for comment be biased? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it biased. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you told people what the truth was, it was not neutrally worded. You even used it to have a dig at other editors. You may take this now as a warning, if you post any more non neutral RFC's I will take it to ani. If you will not listen to me maybe you will listen to an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven The RfC is just a request for comment, and those who starts RfC are allowed to vote to, I voted include and stated my reasons, and I am totally allowed to do that, it does not break neutrality kind fellow editor. I do not think it is neutral of you to claim an event ended on a particluar day based on personal views while WP:RS disagrees though, but still like me you are entitled to share your vote. And like all RfC I expect what majority editors vote is what goes, good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have one source that says they have ended?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have explained multiple times, not my fault if you do not bother to read, it is not a war that there will be a declaration it is over, the 1992 LA riots were said to have ended when no further protests over the incident happened, no official declaration, such is the case for The George Floyd Protests no report of protests relating to Mr Floyd since August 2020, and you are mixing up other BLM protests with this one. There is 0 WP:RS, WP:V that the George Floyd Protests are still ongoing. See my coment on the RfC of thar article's talk page Dilbaggg (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pro Wrestling Illustrated 2020 cover.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Pro Wrestling Illustrated 2020 cover.JPG, which you've attributed to http://pwi-online.com/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ytoyoda (talk)you may delete it if it is against the guideline and I want to comply with the guidelines. if it violates the guidelines I request you to please immediately delete it. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Broadly ill-mannered behavior

It's incredibly interesting (and hypocritical) how you shamelessly go out of your way to call out/shame particular users within Revision history logs & talk pages. Fact is, you've actively gone out of your way to make sure other page contributors feel gaslit enough as to not oppose your peculiar approach to the so-called "edit wars". Newsflash: Editing disputes being resolved/discussed amongst contributors in a moderately-polite manner don't require unnecessarily virulent slant to be resolved. Please work on your attitude and consider formulating your thoughts in a kinder manner. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsMarkWbu Users can be definately be warned about disruptive behaviors,, which I did, no need to take offense at something that is com pletely within Wikipedia guidelines. You currently erased the warns but incase of future disruptive editing I can undo that as it will remain in your talk page history. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines, thank you for your time. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

This edit is not vandalism. If you are going to reference policies your edit summaries please make sure you understand them. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Tiderolls 12:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Tiderolls so what do we call persistently removing Wp:RS info despite requests to ask for WP:RfC, the user even falsley claimed on talk page that he has requested one despite not doing so and says four users have agreed with him. Where? And also seems "Blanking, illegitimate" and also the user has received warning by other users other than me and has erased those warns from his talk page (which is allowe, but yeah shows the behavioral pattern). I have repeatedly requested the user to start an RfC which he didnt but falsely claims he did and is persistently erasing WP:RS contents anyway based on personal views. This meets the [2] criteria. See Talk:The Streak (wrestling) and my repeated requests for an RfC but he won't do it and no consensus was reached, yet he claims this was "agreed on", where are the four users he is refering to that agreed? Anyway since you are an admin you can judge the behavior better than me, I wanted him to RfC in the first place to get the views of senior users, and if you analyze the matter and give a decision regarding this no further issues and I will respect your decision. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would call that frustrating, wearisome and edit warring. None of which is vandalism. Please read the policy. The relevant part: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. I will be posting on that article's talk, you'll get a ping. For your future reference, you don't have to copy and paste an editor's complete signature mark up to alert them. Tiderolls 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A round of drinks on me

I apologize for not remaining calm about your allegations on an article talk page and on my user talk page. It was jarring for me to accused of things I felt were false. I can see that you might have entered the situation from a place of frustration as you had dealt with an editor before that was later blocked, and other editors were reverting your changes, which always sucks when you take the time to make an edit in the first place. Please assume good faith and ease up a bit on the warnings and accusations. :) I stumbled upon this guidance about civility on Wikipedia that I found helpful in reflecting on this incident. Feel free to delete this message. Thank you! Minnemeeples (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wednesday Night Wars

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wednesday Night Wars you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of REDMAN 2019 -- REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wednesday Night Wars

The article Wednesday Night Wars you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wednesday Night Wars for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of REDMAN 2019 -- REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Life si full of ups and downs. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A Question=

Is it very possible that the WWE Royal Rumble pay-per-view could very well go back to having just one men's Royal Rumble match in the very near future? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyRhodesDiva (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@CodyRhodesDiva and CodyRhodesDiva: CodyRhodesDiva CodyRhodesDiva User talk:CodyRhodesDiva well no I don't think it will, as these days women are equal to men, and there are more women fan now then when the Rumbles actually begun in the late 80s, back in the 1990s women wrestling wasn't progressive and women fanbase was rare. Now women and children make over 60% of the wrestling fanbase and even men wants to see women in competitive matches, rather than pillow fights that existed in the 90s. The world has changed and women can do what men can do, so no it will never go back to being men's only Royal Rumble matches. But just like we do not add trivial information that 2001 Royal Rumble match was Austin's record 3rd rumble victory, or the No Way Out 2009 EC match was HHH's record 4th EC match victory, there is no need to violate WP:Trivial by stating that the 2017 Rumbles was the last "without women", and please refrain from WP:NOR violation, and just like we dont go saying that the SummerSlam 2000 TLC match was the first "men's tlc" match, just the first TLC match, we dont need to say the 2018 TLC match was the first women's TLC match, everything doesnt need to be highlighted because it is done for the first time ever by women. With that said women are the future of WWE, Becky Lynch is the most popular star since Rock and Austin, so the women's evolution will continue as long as the WWE continues to exist. But I hope you strictly follow the WP:NOR and WP:Trivial policy and don't over do things. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The New Era (WWE) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The New Era (WWE), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Era (WWE) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Response on Talk:The Undertaker

Hi there,

I’ve just responded to a comment of yours on The Undertaker’s talk page. This is just a courtesy message in case you would like to keep track of the discussion.

Just so you know, I don’t particularly agree or disagree with what you wrote - I just wanted to clarify a likely motivation of the users you refer to that I didn’t think you had addressed.

Thanks, 79.97.2.84 (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed on the talk page, good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd protests RfC

I know you said you were done with the article but considering your fervent support of changing the status, I would really appreciate at least a "support." Here's the link: Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#RfC on Status of George Floyd protests Thanks! Anon0098 (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "In use" template

Can you care to explain why you have removed the {{in use}} template from the Attitude Era page? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

False the templetes are there. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What's this edit then? Oh it's you removing the {{in use}} tag. And here's me having to reinsert it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Chyna, and the sentence "Chyna, who would be featured in a more prominent role as well as regularly wrestling against male wrestlers and defeating them for championships". How on earth can you possibly come to the conclusion that this part in bold is saying she won all her matches? She defeated Jeff Jarrett and Val Venis for the intercontinental championship, ergo the sentence in italics she "defeat[ed] them for championships". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ItsKesha her IC title win is already mentioned in DX section, and you said she won numerous men's title, she only won the men's IC title just once,l and your writing gives a misleading info that she won all matches, she won some, she lost some, but you say she regularly defeated male wrestlers, which fails WP:V and has no WP:RS, which are the most important wikipedia rules ever and the content itself appears Wp:Fancruft and Wp:Undue. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For a start her championship wins were when she wasn't even in "DX". So having it in that section is absolute nonsense. Secondly, it says she won "championships", not "numerous men's titles". Please stop lying, please actually read what the words actually are. Oh, and she won the championship on two occasions, not one; if your research is so bad that you missed such a simple fact, what hope should anybody have in any of your other edits? The sentence doesn't come close to saying she won all matches, read the part in bold again. It very clearly doesn't say "she regularly defeated male wrestlers", does it. And no, it's definitely not undue when she is the only women to have ever won the championship. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You are the one lying, this is what you wrote "Chyna, who would be featured in a more prominent role as well as regularly wrestling against male wrestlers and defeating them for championships", she didn't defeat men for other titles, she only won the IC title once and your edit makes it as if she won all her matches. This is not the individual Chyna article either, please stop this WP:Fancruft. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

She beat reigning champion Jeff Jarrett in 1999 and reigning champion Val Venis in 2000. Sorry pal. And again, no it doesn't sound like she won all her matches, not even remotely. Is English your first language? Maybe this is where the confusion is arising from. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Two wrestlers is not "numerous" wrestlers, and the way you wrote it is not what your own used source says ItsKesha. You did inded give misleading view, perhaps its you who needs English lessons. Many wrestlers won and lost titles, but you using fan pov to just show Chyna's, and its still only the IC you claimed she won numerous men's titles by defeating men. Nope please cite according to the source instead of your misleading ways. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also ou said championships as in plural, the IC title is the only men's title she won, please phrase your sentence properly rather than writing in WP:Fancruft fashion. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also the section is not solely about DX, but: Triple H, Chyna and DX. It was never linked that her winning the IC title had anything to do with DX. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've amended the sentence, and as this was seemingly your sole complaint with my edit earlier, I have amended accordingly. Thank you for discussing. If you have any other complaints, please discuss here or on the Attitude Era talk page and I will gladly discuss it with you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a section exclusively about Triple H, info about him should ideally go into the main section, the DX portion should go in the "stables" section with prose about stables being a big deal in this period of time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

User:ItsKesha, thank you, its better now, but you still ahd some errors, Austin-McMahone was the most prominent thing but its not solely Austin Era, Rock, Undertaker, Kane, Mankind and as you said Triple H all were very prominent and deserve their own sections, so please do not classify everything under Austin era, and Austin vs Vince April 13, 1998 is arguabally the most important match in Attitude Era history, please stop erasing that and I think we can be in good terms, oth of us just want to improve the article, best wishes User:ItsKesha. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The section was named that because he was by far the biggest star during the period of 1998-1999, which is what it is going to be covering, and it's not even close that he was the biggest star. All the rest that you've unfathomably reinserted is unsourced and unnecessary plot summary written from a fan's POV. Literally the three reasons this article has major issues, so please remove it. And if that match is "the most important match", where's your source for such a major statement? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ItsKesha here we go, WP:Fancruft again, yes Austin-McMahone was the ccentral feud 1998-1999 but then McMahone got banned from TV after Fully Loaded and after Survivor Series Austin was written off, and you think Attitude Era would succeed without Rock-Mankind? Nope, and thsoe sections also have WP:RS, and Mankind winning the title from Rock is VITAL turning point in the attitude era and the monday night wars, their contributions cannot be neglected and Rock, Triple H, Undertaker, Kane and Mankind carried the Attitude Era after Austin's injury, best wishes ItsKesha. If you want you can however erase undertaker and Kane and add them in stable section, but Rock, Triple H and Mankind are undeniably important individually just after Austin, and the attitude era didnt end in 1999, those three carried the company in 2000 even after Austin's return. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not fancruft, it's a section title. You have completely misunderstood what fancruft is. There is clearly already mention of The Rock, and as the article is under construction, I also have text discussing Mankind and The Rock in further detail in the pipelines. That's literally why there is an under construction tag; the very first thing it says is "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring". It's not even close to being finished. So again, please undo your revert. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ItsKesha You are welcome to make your positive changes, but Austin, Rock, Mick Foley and Triple H should be separate sections, all four men had undeniable contributions, best wishes. You can add your new contents with sources within the existing sections in the existing format. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've JUST TOLD YOU the article is under construction and isn't close to being finished. No wrestler should have a separate section, they should all be discussed in the wider context of the "Attitude Era", which is what I'm doing to the article. As I've already told you. The existing format of the article is a major reason the article currently has "multiple issues", so no, I won't be doing that. As I've already told you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No one said anything againstthe formatting. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You literally said "You can add your new contents with sources within the existing sections in the existing format". Please don't ignore the rest of what I've wrote. And you're wasting your time with your current edits to the article. Badly written and badly cited extraneous plot information. It's going. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ItsKesha You are being irrational now, I am adding well-sourced and verifiable contents, if you disagree seek WP:RfC or WP:DR. I have completed the Austin arc, Rock, Mankind and Triple H needs to be elaborated.. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Imagine thinking "Online World of Wrestling" is a good source to use. And nobody mentioned sourcing. I said it was "badly written and badly cited extraneous plot information". It's still going lol. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

User:ItsKesha I do not agree with your definition of "badly written and badly cited extraneous plot information" and Online World of Wrestling is a reliable source, its not listed unreliable WP:PW/RS and is being used as a source for wrestling results since long before either of us had registered on Wikipedia. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wanna try checking that again? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attitude Era, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Booker T.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Triple H into Attitude Era. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep in mind. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Stone Cold Steve Austin lead

Hello, I have started a discussion at Talk:Stone Cold Steve Austin about the inclusion or removal of citations from the lead section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan Yes I discussed the matter in the article's talk page, you can see. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply, the article underwent improvements looks to be in good shape now ok. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Royal rumble

I think you missed the point about the triple threat. As LM said, this is not a list of events or good quality matches, they have to be relaed to the Reality Era. You gave 3 sources. The Bleacherreport doesn't mention the Reality Era, so there is no reason just because is a good match or a match of the year. 2014 and 2016 also have a best match, but isn't included. The other source, which is unreliable at the moment, ranked the match as the number 7. Why including this one and not the other 6? The match was good, but it has to be related with the contect of the article.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Either ways it happened in January 2015, HHH Pedrigree, so it is part of the Reality Era. When we talk about Rock vs Austin WM 15, WM 17 we don't always have WP:RS stating they are part of the Attitude Era, but we know they belong to the attitude timeframe 1997-2001, so it makes them part of the attitude era. Similarly, this triple threat match was a big part of The Reality Era and it happened within the time frame. I think that is sufficient enough. Anyway, I will try finding a better WP:PW/RS that says its part of the reality era then add it back, OK? Anyway good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, it happened during the Reality Era, but sources doesn't mention any historical meaning to the match. It's not about the match doesn't belong to the era (the match, of course, belong to the era), but has no historical weight. Weight is given by sources talking about how this match is relevant for the Reality Era, no just it's a good match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah Ok, then if I find a WP:PW/RS that says its a big part of Reality Era I will add it back. If I can't find such a source, I won't add t back. All is well then. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021, Attitude era page

Reverted your violations of Attitude era page, there was zero WP:Fancruft content, nor was there WP:NOR. Austin being more prominent is a personal view thus WP:NOR , does not deal with sourced ratings and facts such as higher ratings from Rock or Austin missing an entire year, sources provided, please do not remove sources, ratings or facts, and please provide sources for your unsourced, unproven and personal edits.

I see on your talk page, that there are many violations to the page that you've made and attempts to remove contribution and sourced research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLMStern (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem highly inexperienced and do not even know how to sign comments. Please learn basic Wikipedia guidlines and formqats first. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Reported your disruptive editing & vandalism of Attitude era page.

You vandalised contributions while providing zero sources and references, only a personal view of another star being bigger despite sources, newspapers, and other references providing ratings to contrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

RLMStern (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Unlike you I used actual WP:PW/RS such as Bleacher Report and 411maina, you are the one removing WP:RS and adding WP:Fancruft and unsourced contents. let the admins see for themselves now.. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

History of WWE

What did I add that was wrong? I cleaned up the formatting (double spaced sections) and removed redundant info (i.e. stuff about the 2002 brand extension being repeated twice).--174.55.91.169 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed references and changed dates without using any citation. Please read WP:RS and you are recommended (though not manditory) to register. Wikipedia always valudes reliable sources and discourages WP:NOR violations. Read WP:RS and WP:NOR carefully. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ODI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Shane McMahon

Please read WP:GOSSIP, WP:RUMOUR, MOS:WEASEL, WP:RELIABLE, and then read the Shane McMahon section under dispute, and then come back and discuss this. Oh and also please read WP:CS. You've already established several times you don't know what a reliable source, you've established several times that you're an unreliable editor, please take under consideration this advice. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha Its not a rumor and does not fall into those categories, its been cited by everyting that is considered WP:RELIABLE as well as WP:Notable within the context of pro wrestling section of Wikipedia. Btw I do apologise, the NYPOST was indeed added by someone, but it was not me and I removed it, but just because of one bad source you cannot remove all the established source information.. I alreadly took the discussion to the articled's talk page, please continue to discuss three instead of WP:EW. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"A report had surfaced", "it is unknown whether Shane’s talent deal was terminated ", "It is being said". These are direct quotes from sources being used. Cop on. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Professional wrestling general sanctions

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 professional wrestling. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

BleacherReport

If you want to remove this comment you can - but I'd urge you not to re-add BleacherReport until you get consensus. You're now at 3 reverts and a 4th would break WP:3RR. If you want to argue BR is reliable for more than minor claims, please start a thread at either WP:RSN or WP:PW. I don't mind which. — Czello 11:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

All right then Czello I accept your point on Bleacher Report, thanks for accepting the other WP:RS, best wishes to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Peace

    Extending an olive branch
    I don't like to have Wikifeuds, and I fear you believe I'm out to get you (or in league with a certain other editor). I'm extending the olive branch to you in the hopes that we can work together cooperatively in the future. All the best. — Czello 15:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Czello I never saw any kind of rivalry with you, its just I found you have a biased atitude and always defend itsKesha no matter, may be you are influenced by him using a picture of musician Kesha and have a soft spot for him for that, remember tho just using someone's pic doesn't make them that prrson, don't let the picture on his webpage give a false image about him to you. bBut other wise I always respected yu as a senior editor until I saw your shock and denialism about the actions on ItsKesha on AN that in revenge for that you nominated my article for deletion just because you are probabally in love with ItsKesha or whatever. Everytime I have disagreements with Kesha, and I revert his edits you revert back to ItsKesha's version. But otherwise you are a great editor and I respect your edits, you have made amazing articleds on Wikipedia and helped give WP:PW a strong image and maintained its greatness, nd also helped contribute to many other projects and stuff on Wikipedia and so lets move on, I always saw you as a good friend and a great veteran ditor, and we all can work together to help build good articles on Wikipedia. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with ItsKesha (and no, his picture has no influence over me, lol). If we've both reverted you, it's because we've both coincidentally arrived at the same conclusion. I was neither shocked nor in denial about his block, I simply was unaware of it and so asked. I did not nominate your article for deletion out of revenge (indeed, I didn't even know it was your article). In fact, I do think ItsKesha could work to be less hostile, but that's another matter. Anyway, I'll leave it at that; you believe I'm in league with him, so either you'll accept this explanation or you won't. If you won't, at least I know we can continue working on this project. — Czello 14:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have always admired you and hope to continue working with you to improve Wikipedia, best wishes Czello bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Again Czello, yes we do have disagreements sometimes but if we work together we make can build nice articles. <3 ande peace bro, I respect this edit 100% [3] 13:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Czello Really I want peace bro, and this trash has been the root cause of all our problems and is also a damaging article for the project itself: New Era (WWE) Dilbaggg (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The WikiProject

Your personal views don't override the WikiProject. If the WikiProject has determined that it's disputed whether a new "era" exists, you don't get to just ignore that because you don't like it. — Czello 18:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who is doing personal views by erasing five Wp:RS and adding your own Wp:OR statement, please stop that, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello 12:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New era

I think you miss the point about the eras. An article about an Era needs source, but not just about an event happened. It has to be related to the Era. For example, several sources pointed Austin and Rock as two stars during that Era. Not just records like new day or returns. As I said on the talk page, we can include every record we want, but not related with the Era. For example, we can say that Razor Ramon won the IC title a record 4 times during the New Generation (or Jarret) but it's not notable in the context of the Era. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree But it happened during the era, if something happens during the time frame of that era, like in Attitude Era: there is the line:

"At Fully Loaded in 1999 Vince McMahon added a stipulation in a first blood match between Undertaker and Austin for the WWF Championship, that if Austin won McMahon would kayfabe step away from the WWF, while if Austin lost he would never receive a title shot for the WWF Championship again. Austin won the match, thus leading to Vince temporarily being banned from the WWF." [4], we don't have any source that says Fully Loaded 1999 was part of the attidue era but it happened during the attitude era 1997-2002 so it was part of the attitude era, same here, all sources say that New Era covers everything tht happened in WWE between May 2016 to july 2022, so New day and Autin's one off match at WM 3 are all part of the New Era. Anyway now i discussed it here Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, we can draw opinion of neutral users and let a consensus decide. so peace bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Well the article is locked now for a different issues, either ways these are notable, best wishes, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

And now they are discussing the WWE Championship there... Dilbaggg (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Heading

That was fine with me, I just kept it under the same heading since I referenced the above discussion in my comment, but I would agree it’s gonna be a more wider ranging discussion.

Don’t stop editing the page. Stick around, I’m not trying to force you off the page or anything, this is a discussion that has to be had, there are significant problems that need to be addressed, but editors in the pro wrestling community still need to stick around. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I was gonna post this on the article talk, but I figured I'd post it directly to you, since it was directed to you anyway. I want to work with you on this, not against you, and I hope you'd be willing to read this explanation and work with me on it.

I have absolutely nothing against PW, I've never held strong opinions for or against it, and I am of the strong opinion that the talent are really good at what they do. I essentially think of the talent as stuntpeople. They do dangerous, sometimes life-risking (or life taking) stunts and fight each other in similar ways to what you'd see stuntpeople do, but they have the added pressure of also having to actually act and play a character, as as someone who loves behind the scenes stunt stuff for movies, it's cool for that to be the main event. It's entertaining, and that's the point. It's entertainment, and I personally think the WWE is good at that. I say all this because I want you to understand my issue with this has nothing to do with vitriol for PW, because I have none for it. The only reason I'm even here is from ANI (IDK if you guys are aware, but someone did take your edit war to ANI, but decided against it and removed it immediately) and I had no previous interest in editing this area before now. My only motive is a desire to help this project work like it is supposed to. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon The New Era (WWE) article itself is pathetic tbh, see my reasons for why I feel it should be deleted which i proposed there. And sorry about my delayed response, was a bit too busy irl which I will be back to being again soon.. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Am glad its finally taken care of. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dilbaggg!

Happy New Year!

Dilbaggg,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Mann Mann I was away, sorry for belated happy new year to you too. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

PG Era

Please re-read the article before adding more content. The first time you added this content, it was largely repeated from a previous section. This time, you pasted it into that very same section! Punk achieving top star status through the pipebomb is described twice in the same paragraph. Even Money in the Bank (2011) gets linked twice in that same paragraph!

Also, we've discussed your relationship with WP:RS before. You can't tell people you're adding WP:RS in the edit summary and then link to whatever tjrwrestling.net is.LM2000 (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And also, it's not up to you to decide the scope of the article, it's up to RS. A plethora of actual reliable sources have used the term "PG Era" to describe WWE's TV-PG rating post-2008. Others use it to describe the kayfabe universe from 2008-2013/4. We can't dismiss either side just because we don't like it.LM2000 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have a personal bias against the period, either ways you can't just remove WP:RS info washout consensus, I will handle it later tho as I have a busy life. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, anyway good day bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Cena vs Orton

What do you think? Should their respective accomplishments be mentioned? — Czello 22:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, while its mainly about their rivalry but sure it can be included to show their prominence in the WWE and further highlights why their feud is so passionate and notable. The good old days, sad they are getting old, injury prone, Cena is already a part timer and its only a matter of time for Orton too, but either ways showing their accomplishments makes the feud a lot more notable, I 100% agree with you bro. I am not that active now a days (might become again tho), thanks for keeping an eye on these articles, best wishes for the Wrestling Wiki Project. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Czello Hmm, while its mainly about their rivalry but sure it can be included to show their prominence in the WWE and further highlights why their feud is so passionate and notable. The good old days, sad they are getting old, injury prone, Cena is already a part timer and its only a matter of time for Orton too, but either ways showing their accomplishments makes the feud a lot more notable, I 100% agree with you bro. I am not that active now a days (might become again tho), thanks for keeping an eye on these articles, best wishes for the Wrestling Wiki Project. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:ItsKesha can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Do not undo another editor's edits on their Talk page. You have no right to insist on them leaving your warnings in place. Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok i will keep in mind but he gets away with a lot of things removing talk page warns not just by me but multiple editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 btw I may not revert talk page but what if he keeps doing the same type of disruptive editing again and again, can I re-warn? Just curious thats why I am asking, sorry to bother about it. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If your warning is about something new that you have not already warned about, you may post the warning. However, if the user explicitly asks you, either in an edit summary or otherwise, not to post to their Talk page, then you must stop posting unless it's a required notice, e.g., you take the user to a noticeboard that requires notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok got it. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

On plot sections

Hi Dilbaggg,

Perhaps you've missed my notification, but I've started a discussion on here about your undoing of my revert. But I have a feeling there should be an additional talk about your work on plot sections. You actually unnecessarily issued a warning to TheDeviantPro for that reason. I'm also cc'ing IceWelder and Rhain, who've also reverted your edits and you undid some of those. Like Rhain said, you're adding unnecessary details, grammar mistakes and typos. For instance, in GTA IV, the character's name is Bulgarin, not Bulgarian. We also do not use contractions, like "doesn't". Looking through your recent edits, I've seen some other edits to plot sections on video games.

In your edit summary, you said This isn't opinion, the statement is backed by sources within the article, you might as well delete the whole plot by your logic! I'm not sure what you mean by that. For one thing, you didn't add any opinion and I didn't say you did. The plot section should be based upon the game, what sources are you talking about? And I reverted your rather small addition, but you believe by that logic we should remove the entire plot section? I don't follow.

In this edit summary, I disagree the mansion does play a big role in the story, please show the guidline dictating word limit. Anyway my last edit here. Plot sections should give a general overview of the story. If the mansion is important, why wasn't it mentioned before? With your edit, it's mentioned once. That the main character becomes a stakeholder in a casino is also trivial at best. In your edit summary you said Keeping in mind the 700 word limits, removing some WP:Weasel contents and highlighting the significance of the mansion. Keeping it to less than 700 words, sure. But WP:WEASEL? It's a plot section, there wouldn't be any POV-pushing words in there, but what weasel words have you removed or changed in that edit?

Regardless of your confusing edit summaries, typos and style errors, most of these edits to plot sections are simply not needed. If you like to help more with video game articles, or other works of fiction with plot sections, I urge you to take a moment to read about MOS:PLOT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Ok soetermans Dilbaggg (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You decided to add the bit, you can find consensus. Feel free to start a RfC. You are being very disruptive. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

But please let your edit summary be true and that it will be your last edit. WP:DROPTHESTICK. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, stop throwing hissy fits at other editors and accusing them of aggressive editing, like what you did to myself; not once but twice. Me and Soetermans agree that some of your edits to the plot section on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are trivial at best and multiple editors have reverted or changed your edits including myself, Soetermans and IceWelder, and nearly every time you have reverted them.

The only person adding their personal views on the article is yourself as you keep adding minor plot details and have failed to explain why they are important to include in the plot section. Also, I don't why you brought up WP:RS in your edit summary, when you haven't provided any reliable sources in any of your edits and the plot section doesn't require to add reliable sources as per MOS:PLOTSOURCE.

@TheDeviantPro by your logic entire plot sectiions of the ALL GTA articles should be removed as the Wp:RS is already in other sections, the plot section just summarizes the RS of other section, every single line doesn't need WP:RS got it?? If we go by your logic delete all PLOT SECTIONS OF ALL GTA Articles as non cites the sources in the plot itself but elsewhere and yes WP:RS covering SA mentions the mansion! Dilbaggg (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your actions shows that you're being the disruptive one here by taking ownership of your own content that you written on the article and reverting anyone who disagrees. Which is ironic since you accused me of the same thing, a week ago. I suggest you stop your aggressive behaviour and disruptive editing, discuss on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas talk page and explain why the plot details you have added are important to the overall plot and get consensus. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note to add onto this, as someone who's worked with you for some time, and occasionally butted heads with you, a bit of advice - in this edit you mention the 3 revert rule. You should be aware that while the 3RR is a bright-line rule, you can still get blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate it. I think if an admin looked at that article's edit history they might take action even if 3RR hasn't been crossed. — Czello ^(music) 08:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dilbaggg reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: ). Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not break WP:3RR here [5] but OK I respect admin decision but I still request a proper WP:RfC rather than the removal of contents that goes on there based on personal views @Courcelles. And he acts like the owner of the article, and falsely accused me of disruptive editing when he was the one removing WP:RS information and has been UnCivil to many editors you can review his talk page history. Anyway the 3RR rule does exists, but if someone is favored I can't do anything, but the practice in GTA articles is indeed malicious and I will request you to review User:Soetermans ownership attitude and removal of contents based on personal views on those article but your choice. Thats all I have to say, and respect any decisions admins make, but just make that simple request. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Next time I will be more careful not to WP:EW, I don't usually get involved and took the 3RR for granted but Grand Theft Auto articles have some oligarchic editors who team up and delete contents of anyone based on personal views acting like they WP:OWN the article. i have at least brought this to attention, sorry i got dragged into WP:EW but hope that this oligarchic behavior by a group of editors adding selective contents based on personal views and removing WP:RS contents stop. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Too big

Going to archive talk page. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)