User talk:Dilbaggg/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Dilbaggg, and

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

"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[1], making it the first time a whole promo was cut about an active rival promotion since the fall of WCW.[citation needed]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) `

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)

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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

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)

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)

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)

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

You need to read

Thats what you are violating,see

WP:DRR/3 where I took the matter. Dilbaggg (talk

) 09:51, 27 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)

Please note that I have declined your request for a third opinion at

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)

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: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 [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  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 [email protected].

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Minnemeeples (talk) has given you a wiki free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you to not get too wiki-drunk or you could get a wiki-hangover. Cheers to agreeing to disagree. See subst:freebeer }}

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)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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

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)

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)

@

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,

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)

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:RS and adding WP:Fancruft and unsourced contents. let the admins see for themselves now.. Dilbaggg (talk

) 18:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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:NOR carefully. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk

) 08:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Please read

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)

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 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