Hello, Dilbaggg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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! KyleJoantalk 20:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 | 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 |
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. AEWFanboytalk 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... AEWFanboytalk 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You need to read wp:editwar very very carefully.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
| 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 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| 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 |
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)
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://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
RLMStern (talk) 18:22, 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)
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: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)
 | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What do you think? Should their respective accomplishments be mentioned? — Czello 22:51, 10 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)
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)
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)
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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Going to archive talk page. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)