User talk:Galatz

This user is Shomer Shabbat and therefore does not check Wikipedia from Friday night until Saturday night, or on Jewish Holidays

This is Galatz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

Archives

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (Jan-Jun) 2018 (Jul-Dec) 2019 Barnstars

Welcome!

Hello, Galatz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of WWE personnel, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop. He (or she) who has a belt ALWAYS automatically goes on the roster, and everything else is window dressing. Stop the edit warring now. Vjmlhds 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it not needed to separate teams into divisions? See Template:NFL, Template:Canadian Football League, Template:AAF, and Template:XFL. Formatting can be corrected but no need to undo separation. Help me understand your decision. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfootballupdater: The biggest issue if you look at how it was formatted [1] compared to the other examples, it is that its not formatted correctly. Notice how sloppy that is with the words just randomly spaced and bolded, versus the others where there are subsections that are neatly organized. I disagree with AAF having them also because there are no pages for East/West and there are not a lot of teams that dividing into divisions does not really help navigation. WP:OSE applies here, just because others have it, does not mean this one should. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Do you think we should re-format or leave as a single list of 8? Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfootballupdater: I believe a single list of 8 is appropriate. There is no East vs West pages and only 4 in each it does not really have a big benefit for splitting. That may change in the future, if more information is added or those pages are created. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: I understand your point, but I thought that separate in and of itself gives more information, especially in the template. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfootballupdater:While it does give more information what is the benefit of that. Per WP:NAVBOX the purpose is to facilitate navigation. The question is, does dividing into division do that? Its not about providing information to the user looking at it, the question is does to aid in navigation. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Got it. Agreed. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "I quit" match, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, As I have got permission to edit in Wikipedia by Static Valor. I added the tagline of SUMMERSLAM 2019. But then why did you deleted that? Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, As I have got permission to edit in Wikipedia by Static Valor. I added the tagline of SUMMERSLAM 2019. But then why did you deleted that? Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahebsheik0110: It was unsourced, it requires a WP:RS. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir what is the WPRS? Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahebsheik0110: I provided you the link, click here --> WP:RS. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahebsheik0110: Clearly you do not even know what it is, since you added [2] [3] two different ones to the article - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I added the poster of SUMMERSLAM 2k19 last on 13 th July,but you removed that. And today I saw that you have updated that poster. What was haapened? Kindly clarify. Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you are talking about - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Clearing (Homeland); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I obtained consensus for the edits I have made. I have now made over a hundred of them. Do not mass revert until we have finished discussion. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Funny how you ignore WP:BRD, you were reverted yet just reverted back while a discussion is ongoing. YOU are the one who should stop your editing. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit the reverts until it's been discussed, ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Articles should remain unchanged unless a consensus is reached. The articles should therefore all be restored to the way they were until a consensus is reached. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRD does not apply because I discussed the changes before making them. There's nothing "bold" about them; rather they were an uncontroversial implementation of a current consensus. You now need a new consensus in your favour before you can revert the edits, particularly when we're dealing with large scale changes. I hope you plan to revert your 100+ edits if a consensus that my edits were correct is found. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am now about to use rollback to undo your 116 reversions of me, per consensus at this discussion. This falls under standard usage of rollback per WP:ROLLBACKUSE#5, To revert widespread edits unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, this being a relevant talk page (and I will also be leaving a similar section on my talk page). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hell in a Cell (2019), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Care to share why? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you look at the log, I unreviewed my review of it. Not sure what generated this message. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: haha ok - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe before you make some edits you should notice what you are doing. Because all of my edits I made was to fix the mistakes you made. How about noticing you have been removing stipulations on articles, changing the consistency of the articles, editing Featured and Good Articles in a manner that have hurt their quality after I spent years writing, sourcing, editing, and raising them to the status they are at. Take your recent edit to Lockdown (2008) where you link to articles that don't even exist. Lets run down the list of issues here. You quote the redirect policy when the redirects didn't exist in the first place. That policy is in line for when to not fix redirects. It does not mean go out of your way to make them. There was no redirects in those articles when they were either GA reviewed or FA reviewed because I made sure before moving them to the mainspace from a subpage. So you are actively going out of your way to create redirects and currently, as above with Lockdown, is to create links to articles that don't exist and thus creating broken links that don't help readers absolutely at all. As for the WON issue, I returned to the previously review approved prose that used the previous links because that page didn't exist when the articles were reviewed. The WON page was built in 2017. Lockdown passed review in 08-09. Beyond that, you have changed materials in the articles to suit your preference rather than any actual need. Why are you decapitalizing proper names for matches that have been approved by committee? Why are you altering article layout without stating so in your edit captions? Why are you removing "see also" sections when they were approved by consensus to be warranted? Why are you adding redundant tables when the miscellaneous section exists saying the exact same thing with sources. If you are going to make edits, do them to improve articles not to hinder them. Now I have to fix the issues you've made once again. Now I have to return the articles to the previous formats because you want to create redirects that didn't exist in the article space to begin with.--WillC 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: Except you are not editing based on the correct way of doing it. Reverting back to something years ago just because that how it was at the time it was approved for GA is just silly. Edits like WON were lost because of this way of editing. Every edit I made was to attempt to move it in line with the WP:PW/SG. You may want to review that, because my edits were correct. I might have missed a couple of link fixes, but its because you went through and mass reverted without paying attention, and I went in to clean up your mess. You have been gone for a while and clearly missed several style guide changes, but that does not make the changes wrong. I appreciate all your hard work in creating those articles, but just because things were changed, its not a slight against you, its just people working together to create the best article possible,

Why would I decapitalize things like Tag Team, because that is what our style guide calls for. That is why every article has it lower case, because our style guide calls for it to be done that way. Or things like "Four Way" were correct to change to "Four-way", if you even look at the target, that is how it spells it in the article Professional wrestling match types#Basic non-elimination matches. Our SG also refers to a "Steel cage match" with lowercase, not uppercase.

If you read WP:NOPIPE you would understand why I fixed the edits the way I did. I created redirects that should have existed to begin with, not just so I could avoid piping, and once they existed it was correct to not pipe them. For example, I have spent countless hours in recent months fixing links that were piped to [[Professional wrestling tag team match types#Multiple man teamed matches]] because it was changed to [[Professional wrestling tag team match types#Multiple wrestlers teamed matches]]. Changing the word "man" to "wrestler" was correct, but it broke at least 500 links, probably more. If these were all not piped, and linked directly to [[Six-man tag team match]] or something similar, then every link could have been updated in 2 minutes, just by updating the redirect. But because people like you force the piping of them, it means every link needed to be manually updated.

The other thing this is fixing is consistency. I have come across about 4-5 different piped locations for a Hardcore match. Some sent it to Hardcore Wrestling or Hardcore wrestling, some sent it to Professional wrestling match types#No Disqualification match and others to Professional_wrestling_match_types#Hardcore-based_variations, among others. By forcing this to the redirect, we ensure consistency in how things are linked as well. And if consensus were to change where the target should be, one edit fixes hundreds of articles.

Or take Drake Maverick which was recently moved from Rockstar Spud. Based on that you are saying, hundred of edits need to change from [[Rockstar Spud]] to [[Drake Maverick|Rockstar Spud]] and there also would be hundreds that would have previously been [[Rockstar Spud|Drake Maverick]] that now need to be changed to [[Drake Maverick]]. That just adds more work than is needed. If every link is just linking to the redirect there would be no need to update based on every name change, in addition to complying with WP:NOPIPE.

I am guessing by article lay out, you are referring to the reception section I saw you move. Until May 2018, reception was to be a subsection under aftermath, but that changed with [4] that edit, based on conversations in the WikiProject. So when I made the change [5] it was correct, and based on consensus and the current standard at the time, but it has clearly not been updated since. So to say I am making a change to align with my preferences is just plain wrong.

I have no idea what "see also" sections you are referring to me removing. You didn't seem to revert any of them so I have no idea what you are referring to. Chances are they only had items linked in the article, and therefore it was removed per WP:SEEALSO.

As far as I am aware I did not remove any stipulations. I assume based on your edit history you are referring to what you undid here [6] which if you spent 30 seconds you could find was removed by an IP two years ago with [7] that edit. Considering I have been editing on WP for over 10 years under this user ID, I don't think I would have removed that under an IP rather than my own user name. But sure, just blame everything you do not agree with on me. Oh and it also looks like this was done while you were actively editing, so you failed to undo it 2 years ago. Perhaps you should take your own advise and "pay attention"

So did I accidentally link to a couple of red links, yes. I am human I make errors. But do I pay attention and edit based on policy and guidelines, yes. You have been gone for a couple of years, perhaps take some time and review the style guide and what pages have been created since you were last here. Things constantly change, and thats a good thing. Don't just revert back to the way things were years ago, because chances are they were changed for a reason. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is rich, you are pointing to the style guide. Tell me, who do you think helped create the style guide? It was me. I was there when it was created. It is also nice of you to point to it, when several of the recent edits are by you, including trying to add material without a consensus. Thats the neat thing about a document anyone can alter and no one pays attention to. Very interesting at how that style guide adopted my style of article. I'm the one that made the whole production, event, reception, aftermath, and then results format that was discussed and adopted project-wide that the style guide lays out. Several of your edits show you altering articles away from that format. So, you are pointing to it as long as it fits your argument.

Where is the consensus that calls for matches to be styled that way? Where is the project wide discussion that said this is the common name of those matches. Where is the English doctrine that requires them to be written in this manner? I don't see it. Because the matches are official names and are proper nouns, they should be capitalized for that reason alone. Otherwise, the layout is also pleasing. I also have a consensus on this seeing as TP 08 and LD 08 are both consensus driven featured articles for these layouts, stylizations, etc.

Your whole hardcore thing there is faulty entirely based on lack of information. TNA specifically, liked to call things by different names solely for the sake of it. The Last Man Standing match at Hard Justice 08 was a Texas Death match, not a last man standing match. A universal redirect doesn't work for that topic. That shows lack of information on the subject manner.

The Rockstar Spud thing doesn't matter. Those links still work. Nothing changed. The issue you are doing is changing [[Professional wrestling match types#Cages|Six Sides of Steel]] to [[Steel cage match|Six Sides of Steel]] for no reason. The link already worked. You are creating a redirect for the sake of it when that redirect links to the already correct space to begin with. Nothing was broken. No harm was done. What you are doing is changing a brand new link for a new PPV from [[Drake Maverick|Rockstar Spud]] to [[Rockstar Spud]] for the sake of it. When it was created just like that. No redirect was ever fixed. Someone just knew the name of the proper article and decided to go straight to it. Did it take a couple more seconds? Yeah. It didn't matter.

As for your timeline on the reception section, I was there when the convo was done. The style guide was never updated. No one paid attention to it. I wrote 60 articles based on reviews. The style guide was forgotten about almost entirely by the project. You want to point out you've been here 10 years, I've almost been around for 11 years. How many articles have you expanded? Did you read the weekly tv reports for these events? Did you take the months to get them reviewed? Do you know exactly what these matches were called? How they were promoted? Do you know anything about them? Or are you just pointing to a style guide that you edit regularly that you have your edits reverted for lack of consensus? We can keep doing this? I'm happy to just go ahead straight to an administrative board and argue these points. We can get to the bottom of it. Because it will be fun to watch you argue to why you are creating redirects in articles that never existed in the first place, making redundant information, and pointing to a page you edit regularly.--WillC 19:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have no problem reporting you for edit warring.--WillC 19:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: If you want to go to an admin and explain to them why you are reverting back to edits from 2+ years ago without looking at what you are reverting, or going based on the consensus of the wikiproject than please go ahead. There is a guideline in place for a reason, and it is actively utilized and discussed, despite what you are saying. There was a conversation about the reception section and then updated right away after. I made no material changes to the style guide without first discussing them.

I am not changing [[Professional wrestling match types#Cages|Six Sides of Steel]] to [[Steel cage match|Six Sides of Steel]] for "no reason" as you state. This is no different than the Hardcore Match example I mentioned above. If the target is changed, it makes more sense to change just the redirect than hundreds of articles.

I see you have a severe case of WP:OWN and would rather have it your way than to discuss. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't own the articles, I just appreciate my work not being turned upside down for so many years. I've seen the FLs for NJPW be split off and thus effectively all the work I did is useless now that they aren't lists. I've seen people come around without any information to the subjects and just change the information without any idea of the entire article is written in a consistent manner. The words in the results section are the same ones used throughout the entire article. I spent the time to get them FA and GA, I'd like to see they remain that way instead of people changing things to fit the "WWE mentality". Matches changed to Three way dance, when they were promoted as Three Way War. Texas Death matches changed to Last Man Standing. I want them to be accurate. I took pride in that. Adding tables that are redundant is useless. They are in the way and don't add anything to the article. Moving the narrative flow to match WWE articles. TNA is a separate company that did things differently. Giving them the match names that WWE give things is inaccurate. It isn't that I own anything. It is that the edits are wrong. I watched your edits. I went edit to edit on every one of those pages. I watched the 6 edits in a row you like to do on pages. I watched what was yours and what was someone elses. I watched you change the steel cage above on Lockdown. Some edits work. Changing to Lethal Lockdown because it exists. Changing to WON. Those work now that they exist (Despite Lethal Lockdown being nothing more than a list of matches). Changing match names for the sake of changing match names that don't reflect what they actually were is factually incorrect. For the ones who took the time, it matters.--WillC 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What did I change? I didnt change Three Way War to Three Way Dance. I fixed the linking and capitalization. I am not to blame for every edit you do not like. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent undoing and reverts is exactly what you are doing there. You are switching them back to the wrong names. So, yeah you are. I was changing the wrong names. I don't care if they are redirects. As long as redirects aren't made from links that already work.--WillC 21:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: I did not change any wrong names. What wrong names did I change? I changed Three Way War to Three-way War, which per MOS:CAPS is not changing the name. And again just because the piping works now, it does not mean it will work in the future, which is why there are times piping it to a redirect makes sense. If every instance of [[Professional wrestling match types#Cages|Six Sides of Steel]] was changed to [[Steel cage match|Six Sides of Steel]], it would not affect a person clicking the link. But if Steel cage match was ever created as a stand alone page, or if the target in the pipe was changed (see the multi man match example above), it would enable hundreds of pages to be updated at once.

Or perfect example based on your edits. You are linking a tag team match as [[Tag Team|Tag Team match]], as I have seen many others points to as well, but hundreds of articles pipe it as [[Professional wrestling match types#Tag team match|Tag team match]]. Which one is correct? Where should these point to? There are merits of both, but it should be consistent. If every article however point to [[Tag team match]], then we could open a discussion, come to a consensus, and instantly every article points to the same place. Just because your link works, it may or may not be the best answer (I am not sure which is), but linking directly to the redirect makes these updates much simpler down the road. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of things, first there is a difference between Three Way War and Three-way war. Just like there is a difference between hell in a cell and Hell in a Cell. It is objectively very clear. What exact part of CAPS does that fall under? Just pointing at it doesn't mean anything unless there is a specific line in there that says to do exactly that. Because under the common name section of CAPS it says for proper names to capitalize the name. And Three Way War would be a proper name that falls in line with the policy as a proper name. So would all match types because they are proper names for an actual advertised contest. Hence the reason the articles and results were done like that in a consistent manner. Not preference, but logical argument. In fact, several of these names can be understood as being copywritten, such as Three Way War which would thus fall under the trademark banner of CAPS and need to be caps as proper names. The only difference between the Three Way War title and Elimination Chamber or Hell in a Cell is fan sentiments. Nothing more. Three Way matches are just more common so they don't feel as special so editors don't capitalize them like the more rare matches. When in reality, they aren't different. Next thing, if the steel cage article became a thing, the link would still work. It would take you to the section about cage matches. Just like how the entries for Lockdown, Chamber, and Hell are all still there serving their purpose. If you want the article to exist, I suggest actually making it and sourcing it. Unlike the Lethal Lockdown article which doesn't even have a status as an article or even a talk page header. That would be much more beneficial than making links to things that don't even exist all because we hope someone may do it. It is Wishful thinking and it isn't rational. As for tag team, they are both correct because they both give the correct information regardless of page. They both explain tag teams and matches. They both work. They both given the reader the exact information needed to understand. No change is needed to either other than to call it by the proper names.--WillC 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: I don't care what your complaints are about Lethal Lockdown. I did not create the article, but if you bothered to look at the edit history you would know that.

Clearly you did not bother to read WP:DONOTFIXIT or else you would realize why your "wishful thinking" comments is ridiculous. Its literally the first bullet point. Reasons not to bypass redirects include:

1. Redirects can indicate possible future articles. I am not saying I wish to create it, or want to create it, or think it should be created. If there is a POSSIBILITY that SOMEONE would, you don't bypass the redirect. Plain, simple, straight forward.
2. Lets look at the second bullet point Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. Both [[Tag Team|Tag Team match]] and [[Professional wrestling match types#Tag team match|Tag team match]] clearly introduce unnecessary invisible text when comparing to [[Tag team match]]. That is a no brainer
3. The next bullet point Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links is EXACTLY what I am describing. It makes large-scale changes easier, something I can speak first hand to, and explained to you above.
4. Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links - Yup, once again, that seems like a perfect example. Is tag team match a redirect to a section, yes. Well then, per that it should NEVER be bypassed, which you are doing.

The other two bullets do not apply, but we are 4 for 4 with the first bullets, in support of what I was saying. So when WP:DONOTFIXIT specifically says "redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed" what justification do you have to bypass a redirect to a section of an article, when it specifically says to never do that? If you want it to say "Three Way War" fine, I don't care, but the other edits are all valid, and I suggest you self revert. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Tag Team match exists right? That solves all of your problems right there.--WillC 02:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you forgot--WillC 02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: I didn't forget it. I created it because it is likely that someone, like you, would incorrectly put "Tag Tag match" in instead of "Tag team match". It is still incorrect, but it doesn't solve all my problems. My problem is that you are force piping when you shouldn't be, that is the BIGGEST problem. I asked you to explain why you are going against what it says, but you failed to address that question. It appears you just want to respond to the parts you want, regardless of what was actually asked. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like you ignoring the entirety of my MOS comment to focus on redirects. So you made a link in a logical way that suggested enough people would view it as being that way. Hmm, trying to have it both ways. Potential articles and titles, but hey this isn't really needed. Wanting to have it both ways I see.--WillC 17:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. How am I trying to have it both ways? Per WP:POFR you create a redirect for Likely alternative capitalizations which is exactly what I did. Common errors in capitalization and misspellings are always created as redirects, its standard practice. If a hypothetical "tag team match" page existed, "Tag Team match" and "Tag Team Match" would all be alternative capitalizations that I would create. Take a look at what redirects to SummerSlam or WrestleMania]. All sorts of likely capitalization mistakes link there. Tag Team match is no different. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just say that again....but slower.--WillC 20:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: Common. Errors. In. Capitalization. And. Misspellings. Are. Always. Created. As. Redirects. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely alternative capitalizations" means any other way to write the name. Doesn't mean it is incorrect. Tag team match and Tag Team match are equal in that regard. You should notice when you say things at how they also help my point as well.--WillC 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: Except Tag Team match is an error, not a likely alternative. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to know if uncredited appearances count towards an actors status on the shows character list? For instance, a character on Fear The Walking Dead has appeared in one episode (as far as I know of), was uncredited in an earlier episode (I don't recall seeing her in the episode tbh), and on her IMDB page, she is listed to appear in a future episode of that season. So, with 3+ appearances she is deemed as recurring on the table (since its a recurring character table), but she's only appeared once (maybe twice, uncredited though), therefore she should remain off the table until she has appeared and been credited for 3+ episodes, right? I'm just having editing issues with another user about this at the moment and would like to get a more experienced editors' opinion on the manner before it becomes an edit war. Thanks in advance, hope my question was clear! MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSMRHurricane: Sorry, I am really not familiar enough with that. Your best bet might be to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and they should be able to point you in the right direction. My thought would be if you have a WP:RS that states its 3 episodes, than its fine, but I am sure this is not the first occurrence of this, so there must be some examples to lean on. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, thank's for your reply on my previous question, it was helpful and I'll look into it at a later date. I just had another question in regards to the cast member table on Total Divas; before we had recurring status in the main table and a separate recurring table below it, this was present for pretty much the entirety of the pages' existence until another user felt it was unnecessary and removed it and change it to how it is now. I worked with them after a few back-and-fourth editing issues, since I felt it wasn't worth the hassle, but now I believe they have been blocked indefinitely due to edit warring (which leads me to believe they weren't totally in the right and the tables before were completely fine since they were accurate and true to the show). Now, I've been thinking about bringing back the recurring status and table due to that belief. So I was just wondering if you would be for that idea since you were the last editor on that page, and I don't want to be involved in any edit wars or friction with other editors. Please let me know what you think, thanks again! MSMRHurricane (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSMRHurricane: Do you mean a table similar to List of Prison Break minor characters. I do not see that table often, but I do occasionally. You might want to take a look at MOS:TV as that has a lot of information on what to include or not. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your help. Reading the guidelines for these matters, I feel it'll be accurate and not breaking any rules to re-add the recurring status to cast members it applies to. That's my opinion, it'll be great if I had your support on this, or heard your opinions about this situation. MSMRHurricane (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited as it was done before. I can't keep up with all the new guidelines for the wrestling pages. DCF94 (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DCF94: This is nothing new and nothing wrestling specific. Looks like its been in that MOS for 7 years [8] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I, like many editors, learned how to edit pages "on the job", and that's how I saw it done before for those kind of names. DCF94 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to revert one more time. I added a ref to existing content. // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW/SG calls for ordering the names on the list, not to have a higher place on the table if the no. of days are the same. i.e.: (from the example) Bo Dallas & Adrian Neville have the same no. of days and they are tied at 3. Therefore Jinder & Mike can be sorted above the other names with <1 days reign, but they are all tied for 5. DCF94 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. No doubt you've seen this IP making a load of theme song-related edits to WWE articles. He's been doing it for many years, and mainly seems to be fixated on WWF Full Metal and WWF The Music, Vol. 2‎, writing nothing but utter tripe. I would highly recommend you revert any and every one of his edits on sight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I don't believe we've ever interacted. I'm KyleJoan. Very nice to meet you! I'm writing because I see that you're an active user on List of WWE personnel. Earlier, I corrected Taynara's ring name to reflect the new mononym, added a citation to support it, and filled out all of the incomplete citations on the page. These changes were instantly reverted by another user. Would you happen to have any suggestions regarding how I should proceed? Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 03:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: I have reverted to a "hybrid" version of the edits. It appears the edits were WP:BABY where all the valid edits went out with what they disagreed with. I have reverted to restore the filled in references. As for the losing the last name edit, I believe for now she should keep it. The source states that "Yes, Taynara Conti lost her last name, it seems." which implies its not confirmed. Her WWE.com profile has not been updated yet. Without it being confirmed I don't believe it should change. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than fair. Thanks again! KyleJoan^talk 20:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE extending NXT duration to two hours airing opposite to NXT is highly significant and relevant. Please do not remove it based on personal views. Discuss why you feel it is irrelevant compared to other information on the History of WWE article talk page first. Also all source provided here were reliable compared to most other material on the article which do not have proper sourcing. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: You AEW information has been removed by not 1, not 2, but 3 separate people. You clearly are violating WP:BRD and are border line WP:EWing. It is your responsibility to take it to talk and get consensus for inclusion. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it kinda ironic that after citing "don't" fix - you state yourself that you are "fixing" something, and stating "no pipe" you didn't actually fix a single piped redirect? I love irony, it's so ironic. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: I have thought about it before. It is ironic, but those are the guides I am editing under. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to know thai if this film could be added to the category Category:Women in WWE in or not. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to Professional wrestling articles. So I wanted to know which sources are considered reliable and non reliable by the community members. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on Israeli articles! IsraeliIdan (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance, I was gonna ask you to take KrishRoyceInc to ANI since you have some knowledge of the situation. This is regarding The Kabuki Warriors, Rascalz, Boss N Hug, etc. articles if you dont recongize the name off top. I won't have the free time, but a report would need to happen while the disruption occurs. I saw the SPI, but those get really lagged on and they also don't like acting on IP reports. You can take some of more information from my post to an admin talk page here. I don't check Wikipedia enough on a daily basis to follow a thread like that. StaticVapor message me! 03:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so I did just report him again at SPI, but ANI might not be a bad place to take him either. Problem is without a check user confirming the IPs are him, it might be hard to have ANI be successful. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is, check users can't connect users to IP address through technical proof, it has to be behavioral WP:DUCK evidence. If you check the histories of those articles especially The North, you can see it's very obvious it is the same person. The IPs have literally edited the articles like minutes after he creates them. StaticVapor message me! 00:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why are you adding COI to the shalom Weiss profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barron Mickey (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barron Mickey: For obvious reasons. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for obvious reasons is not a reason, the shoam weiss article has over 20 references, you are just looking to vandalize the article. please stop vandalizing the article without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barron Mickey (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having references has nothing to do with it. If the series of edits makes it appear that someone close to the situation edited the page, than it belongs there. I suggest you read WP:COI and familiarize yourself with it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't know the sholam weiss case, all references are backed up by an article or a legal documents.. please provide all the issues you with the Sholam Weiss article so we could clear up all your issues.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barron Mickey (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: there are more then 54 references in the sholam weiss article--Barron Mickey (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am extremely familiar with the case. But my knowledge of the case has nothing to do with the tag, nor to the number of references. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

all the Tags that you keep on adding are fake and without reason other then to vandalize the  shoalam weiss page. i have asked you multiple time why you keep on adding this code tags and you keep on diverting the conversation..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barron Mickey (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered by multiple people, you just refuse to acknowledge the answer. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you never answered me why you keep on adding the COI Hello, I'm Barron Mickey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

why did you delete the sentencing cart in the sholam weiss page ? as well you deleted 10 references. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Barron Mickey (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't read do you? I gave an edit summary which has all the information you need - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Galatz,

Can you please review this new page List if members of the twenty-second Knesset? Thank you! Shemtov613 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the twenty-second Knesset Shemtov613 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	100,000th edit award
	Hello Galatz. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Thanks - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome G. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted that edit on the page because WWE.com made the announcement of the new announce teams. I thought since WWE announced the changes and the other user that originally made the edit was correct that I reverted it and was about to fix the errors when you reverted my reversion. How can we work together and post the correct information since the current edit is now outdated?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Okamoto: Everthing on wikipedia, especially future events, need in line citations or else if fails WP:V. Also there are tons of formatting issues, like RAW in all caps and linked to the wrong pages, etc. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to fix the formatting issues when you reverted my reversion. So does this mean we'll have to wait until Raw and SmackDown to air and edit the announce teams accordingly?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. You can help me with creating the page and move what's important to the new page. The WWE NXT page would look so much better without all that extra details that really cluttered the page.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Okamoto: I have thought the same for a while. Take a look - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting you because you voted delete on the article on Tony Ricca. Over on the Commons there are a number of photos, one of which was used in a draft here that was speedily deleted under C4. I therefore believe all the photos there need to be deleted. I have nominated all of them, but Georgivac (who was banned from Wikipedia for socking) is still insisting on the commons that he is notable. I need help with delete votes. The Commons pictures are these; [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:B5DD:CEDF:C253:4630 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so ridiculously anal about these things? Seriously? What, are we to wait years to come to the conclusion that the title wasn't defended on the main roster PPVs anymore? That's ridiculous. It is an NXT-branded title now. NXT-branded titles are not defended on the main roster PPVs. There is one rare exception, and that was the NXT Women's Championship at WWE Evolution, but that was a PPV to showcase all of their women, not just the main roster ones. Aside from that, my statement is true and is not OR, it's logic, which you are not using. --JDC808 ♫ 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: You have no idea how anything will be treated going forward, you are drawing conclusions. What if now that NXT is on USA they start including NXT championship matches on the major pay-per-views? There are so many things in flux right now you have no idea what will happen. If they want to get more attention to the NXT product, they very easily could do NXT matches along side Raw/SD to get it more main stream attention. This is just as likely to happen as its only defended on TakeOver specials. What you are doing is a pure and simple guess as to what the future will look like, based on no information of how the future will look. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could that happen? Anything is possible, but based on what we know, there are no plans to include NXT wrestlers or NXT title matches on the major PPVs. They have TakeOver events scheduled up through next year (and probably beyond). WWE still treats NXT as a separate entity from the main roster. --JDC808 ♫ 16:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: So what you are saying is you want to WP:SYNTH random bits of information together? There is no TakeOver announced from November until August, so whats happening in those 9 months is not official. No TakeOver for certain RR weekend, so perhaps they will take part in that. Its all unknown - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing gets past you does it? The dates haven't been set, but TakeOver events are happening throughout next year. There's also a report that says that WWE will be adding more TakeOver events next year. But no, it's apparently all unknown. --JDC808 ♫ 19:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: So rumors from non reliable websites are your basis for "common sense"? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first sites a reliable source (Wrestling Observer), and the other isn't listed at WP:PW/RS to say it's reliable or not. --JDC808 ♫ 20:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me, because I'm just a simpleton from Cleveland...how are the 24/7 Title matches NOT matches but "segments"?

You have one wrestler vs another wrestler, with a referee and are going after a title - how is THAT not a match?

Granted they're not traditional matches going by traditional rules, but when has that mattered?

I think you're making advanced trigonometry out of simple math.

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: What makes it a match other than a ref. When did the match start? Did it end after the pinfall? If Carmella kicked out what would the result say? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The match begins with the pinfall attempt, and ends when either a 3 count/submission or the champ takes off. For someone who is so stringent on minutiae, you're playing a lot of woulda/coulda/shoulda. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. First, we don't include this kind of segments, like WM X8 where the Hardcore title changed several times. Second, WWE.com doesn't include as matches of the card. IGN doesn't mention it. PWTorch called "segments". CNET doesn't mention it. WrestleView doesn't include as matches. Same for ProWrestling.net --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I am not playing ifs and buts. In the period of time since the championship was introduced, there have been attempts on PPV that were not successful. Whats the result of that "match" - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay yes... now that you created a page for Dark it can go into the Navbox. Congratulations, I guess. 174.125.60.159 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@174.125.60.159: Read what I linked you to. Even if its likely to the created it should be linked, me creating it is irrelevant to its inclusion. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at WP:RED and I did fix the links to fit the guidelines. Why do you think Dave Mastiff, Ilja Dragunov and Primate (wrestler) should keep the red links when it's clear that they don't have pages yet?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure what you read if you don't see anything. The nutshell at the top says Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. Are you saying with 100% certainty that these pages should not exist? The first paragraph of the article states A red link, like this one, signifies that the linked-to page does not exist‍—‌it either never existed, or previously existed but has been deleted. It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow. The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.

So either you did not read as far as the beginning of the article or you believe these subjects will never get their own page. Which one is it? If you don't think they should, clearly others disagree with you and thats why they are red linked. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that these red links must stay on? That sucks. It just looks wrong as those guys haven't done anything noteworthy to warrant a creation of their own pages. Can we just keep the "nolink=1"? They're still there and linked. What's wrong with "nolink=1"?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Okamoto: How are they "still there and linked" when you unlink it? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. I'll use Primate as an example.

Here's the current red link version: Primate and here's the fixed version: Primate

The edit is still there, but once Primate and the others get their pages, then we can restore them. If that's not it then what is it that I'm not getting?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Okamoto: The point is 2 fold. Firstly, the red link shows people it has not been created in case they see it and decide to create it. The second is that once it is created its automatically linked. You are looking at it as just this one article, but what about all the other places things are used.

Although not exactly the same, WP:DONOTFIXIT and WP:NOPIPE has the same logic. In the not so distant past I created both Royal Rumble match and Survivor Series match. After I created it I had to go through hundreds of articles and fix the linking so they were linking to the correct place. Even though the Royal Rumble match page never existed, it still should have been linked to, so once it was all the links point to it automatically. Royal Rumble match used to redirect to Royal Rumble, but even if it was a red link, the same logic applies. You link to what could be an eventual article, and once its created all the links automatically work. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, saw the revert and the links behind your changes, so thanks for that it makes it easier to figure the difference in opinion on overlinking in the results tables. Looking at the overlinking article to try and find out what section you believe supports the view that the result tables are excempt from overlinking. Searching for the word "table" in that article the closest match I get to support your view is This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. am I right in assuming this is the part you cite to say that overlinking is okay? The key here is "not read from top to bottom" - which means that it only applies to sortable tables. If a table can be sorted then I agree overlinking does not apply, I have done enough championship Featured Lists to know that. But here is the sticking point - Results tables are not sortable, so they are indeed intended to be read from top to bottom and thus subject to overlinking. Not interested in a revert war, and at some point the match results table was sortable so in the past (several years ago) this was indeed correct, but not any more. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: Here is my understanding of how its utilized, not thats its sortable, but thats its not read top to bottom, literally. For example, its extremely likely that someone might want to just see what happens in the main event, or one particular match. In the MLW Saturday Night SuperFight example, LA Park is linked in his match and then mentioned again under stipulation, no need to link again there because its the same line, where people are likely to look at the line as one "particular bit of data". If you look at what is done under championships, like List of WWE 24/7 Champions for example, R-Truth is linked one per line, but never more than once per line. These individual reigns are also likely not to be red top to bottom (sortable or not). - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it refers to sortable tables from everything I've been told when dealing with Featured Lists, which as I am sure you can imagine, deals with quite a few tables. But I think the best course of action would be to ask on the talk page of the "Overlinking" guideline. I'll go post the question there to solicit comments from to see if that can help guide the decision on how a non-sortable table should be handled. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we only ever do "what has been done before" there would be no format improvements or innovation in the professional wrestling articles. It is a shame there was just a "urgh, different, revert" reaction instead of some sort of discussion to see if this could be something that may benefit the articles on Wikipedia. It's a choice I guess, and reverting me again would be a choice too. One I leave up to you to make, I'm certainly not going into any more reverts over this. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: I am not saying just because its never been done before it can't be done in the future. Are you saying there should be results listed for all 1,400 episodes of Raw and all 1,000 episodes for SmackDown? I think WP:OSE applies in this instance and should be discussed before including. In my opinion its WP:FANCRUFT but others may disagree, so I suggest opening a discussion at WT:PW and seeing what other people think. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying that if someone wants to present a list with reliable sources that lists the events and main events etc. then I don't see a problem with it. To me it's not really that different than TV episode lists like List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) or List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the IP isn't drawing a conclusion. The tagline is on the poster, so there doesn't have to be a source, and the tagline would be the official one. ☮Senny is a Hippie☮ 18:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernKangaroo: No where does it state that what is on the poster is the tagline. Very often there are multiple poster and each one has a different "tagline" on it. Additionally if someone uploads a different poster then the tagline is gone and then what? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry i took so long to respond, not good with laptop keyboards or wording a sentence) I don't think there's different posters for Stomping Grounds, since it was only one day. (Then again, I could be wrong because I only see one, on the article) Taglines are usually located at the top or bottom of a poster, like a slogan, so it's really visible. (I'm not exactly an expert on posters, seeing that I only have two.) ☮Senny is a Hippie☮ 18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this or this good enough for you? --AndSalx95 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AndSalx95: Where does either one say its the tagline? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the carpet bomb edits until consensus figures it out.

Right now it's a mixed bag, so until there's a clear verdict one way or the other, just sit tight.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: You have no source saying he should be included, so no. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I split the difference - I acknowledged Woods' claim, but also mentioned it wasn't confirmed by WWE, so he doesn't have blanket full credit. Can't just throw Wood's on-record claim in the garbage, bit I'm giving him blind support either. Shades of grey...kind like the real world. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good afternoon or evening, how are you, I would like to collaborate with this page that had been made by the user called "The Inner Circle" the most filling stable of wrestling, I ask you please do not delete it please, I want to help you put links Where do we get it from and what does it all consist of, I await your response, thanks greetings.

Jose34683 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on SoCal Uncensored (professional wrestling) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Vjmlhds 23:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How is my edit irrelevant when it is WWE confirmed that the Elimination Chamber is confirmed as the last PPV on the reference I linked from WWE themselves? Fastlane has been in that calendar spot where Elimination Chamber will be for the last three years. Fastlane has occurred on March 5, 2017, March 11, 2018, and March 10, 2019, and Elimination Chamber will be on March 8, 2020 thus I fail to see how that is irrelevant? comment added by Dachad01 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dachad01: First of all your edit [17] had tons of issues, before we even get to whether or not its relevant.

First you piped links to both WrestleMania and Elimination Chamber. Both pages exist so why would you pipe them? Additionally even if they didn't exist, you still should not pipe them. I suggest you read WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT.

Second, statements like "A date for 2020 has not year been announced" is pure violation of WP:NOR. You are making it seem as if the event date is forthcoming, yet you have no proof that it ever will.

Third, in terms of relevancy, you are put WP:UNDUE emphasis on where it is next to WrestleMania. What does that impact? The pay-per-view stands by itself, and its timing compared to WM is meaningless. If it does happen in 2020 than only 50% of them would have occurred immediately before WM.

So in short, since you asked, your edit was terrible and should have been reverted. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was looking some of the events held by ROH, since you said most of them look no notable. I saw this in 2019 State of the Art (2019) Masters of the Craft (2019) Road to G1 Supercard ROH Honor Reigns Supreme (2019) Manhattan Mayhem (2019) Mass Hysteria (2019) Saturday Night At Center Stage (2019) Honor For All (2019) As you said, most of them have no source excpet primary sources (roh website) and lack of coverage except ROUTINE. Just a collection of results, no background, production section... what do you think? Should we open more AfD? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Looking at them I dont see anything notable about them. Just regular events. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Galatz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you for your great contributions on wrestling pages and others. You're a wonderful asset to the project and Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galatz! I saw you several times working on articles about NXT TakeOver. I wonder why the events have been called "TakeOver". Do you know something about the naming? Doc Taxon (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already went over this once before and you lost the discussion. The WP:ONUS is on you if you want to change anything. The consensus is the GA discussion for each and that is the agreed on position.--WillC 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to have to go over this all over again as I try to improve articles and to be inline with each other then I'm all prepared to just go to dispute resolution now. I can only imagine the issues I'll have when I put in the expanded version of Against All Odds (2006) in from my subpage. The template has the PPV lists a specific way and my edits went in line with it. You corrected redirects in your edits which you are keen to point out not to fix in several of your edits. Matches are proper names and are used in the same manner in the text. The on air box is redundant to when the text states it and policy states that text should be used over boxes. All of this was determined in our last discussion and there was no consensus to change the article. Per ONUS, to include any your desired changes you have to get a consensus to override the GA review that was an agreement between editors.--WillC 15:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: If you want to go to dispute resolution, go right ahead. My edits are supported by WP:PW/SG and discussions at WT:PW. Yours are based on the way things are 5 years ago. Things were discussed and consensus reached on changing things that you are undoing. Get over your WP:OWN mentality and follow the SG. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of my edits violated the Style guide. So good luck with your argument. Attempt to undo my edits again and I will report you to an admin and attempting to OWN.--WillC 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:EDITCONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, and the GA review, my edits do stand as you never got a consensus to include any of your changes to the article. Your edits also conflict with the flow of the article as the prose and the boxes do not match. Including the on air box being redundant that has no consensus to even be in the article per ONUS.--WillC 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I literally renamed a section, added a citation, moved a statement to a more appropriate location, and matched the names of advertised matches with those in the prose of the article. This I constitute as vandalism.--WillC 18:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted multiple statements, have given policy reasons, and I have even done a previous discussion over these changes. Yet you continue to edit war over this without any basis. I am forced to take this to an admin noticeboard.--WillC 19:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated changes are not in line with Template:Infobox professional wrestling event, nor the prose of the article at large.--WillC 19:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: There was a discussion at the Wikiproject last year to make changes. If the template was not updated then it should be, but there was discussion about it and the SG was updated based on it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW/PPVG doesn't even have the template listed in the article. Nor anything about on air employees. There is no consensus per the very thing you claim. The template stands.--WillC 19:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: As I told you there was discussion about it on WT:PW yet you continued to edit it in the manner you chose. That is called edit warring. You are ignoring years of discussions and doing what you please. I will restore these items to what they were, in compliance with WP:BRD if you wish to open a discussion you are welcome to, but they should not be removed again without discussion. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per ONUS, the ball is up to you to show consensus to even include all of this. I have stated this before. You've yet to show this.--WillC 19:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is adorable you are using WP:BRD because a second revert isn't supposed to happen and you are actively violating that policy by doing so. If you are going to quote policies, go by them. You've yet to show a consensus for your edits. I'm still waiting on that discussion. Seeing how many comments I've left and how many you have left, it looks like I'm trying to discuss.--WillC 19:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestlinglover: Let me get this straight, because you bomb my talk page you are trying to have a discussion and I am not? Really?

Last time you went on this mass revert to the way thing used to be you mentioned the other on screen personnel table on WT:PW. It was specifically stated by others that you should stop removing it unless you gain consensus. Something that never happened.

I have updated the template and linked the discussion to it. If you disagree then reopen the discussion but there were no objections to the change when it was proposed, by someone other than me.

The capitalization are in line with WP:PW/SG something you have not tried to gain a consensus to change.

So yes, it is you who is failing to attempt to gain a consensus on your changes. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 105#Event, chronology in event info boxes is not a consensus. It is three editors proposing a policy and no discussion plus no closure establishing a consensus. It also doesn't go with your edits as that establishes chronology, it does not even discuss event calendar.--WillC 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edits are disruptive. You have removed information valid in the results with your reverts including stipulations, match times, and added a box that goes against the entire MOS. You have yet to even show a consensus for any of your edits. Pointing at a style guide isn't a consensus. You must show the agreement because otherwise things are just added to the guide.--WillC 19:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have a valid consensus in the above link based on the fact nothing was updated including the template so nothing was agreed upon and the discussion was archived before changes were ever made. MOS:TABLE dictates the on air table shouldn't exist and that prose is better. Otherwise, your changes are based on WP:IDL while mine are based on the fact that is how the article was created, the match names are proper names that are styled just like that in announcements, and they match the usage in the prose. Now what is your counter. Because in 24 hours, I'm reverting back to the original style because you lack a consensus and I have given policy for mine. Per WP:ONUS to include any information in an article you need an established agreement. The template agreement needs to be agreed by the project to be valid. The table needs to be agreed by the project to be included. Otherwise, I have the GA review as an agreement for the article style along with the past agreement on article layout.--WillC 19:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As we discussed last time these capitalizations have been there for 10 years. When it was established a consensus was reached in including everything as a whole. Another discussion was held 2 years ago in order to overhaul everything here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_100#Style_guide_expansion. In both instances no one objected to the capitalization the way it was presented. You claim you always follow what happens even without editing, but you chose to be silent during this discussion. If you don't like it open the discussion and try and gain your consensus, don't just edit war. If you feel so confident this shouldn't been an issue for you.
    • The same applies to the discussion on the events box. Although there were only 3 people, that is enough to establish this consensus. It was discussed at the wikiproject and there were no objections. Having everyone who contributed agree, is a consensus.
    • It is possible there were some WP:BABY, but I tried my best to avoid removing anything that was a productive edit, and in my instances re-established the things that did get removed.
    • You are mis-using WP:ONUS. It is not about whether or not the information should be including. You are arguing prose vs table, so that is not the proper policy.
    • I really do not think you understand how the GA review works. Please tell me what Wikipedia policy states that if the person who created the article doesn't like it, the way it was when GA was reviewed wins. It sounds like a WP:OWN issue.
    • You 24 hour rule is retarded and not based on WP policy. As you have been told multiple times, gain a consensus in WT:PW where the current SG was established. Its not my job to convince you, the SG exists for a reason.
    • Just because a company capitalized something it does not mean Wikipedia follows. There are examples of that time and time again. On Wikipedia its Raw not RAW. And its "professional wrestlers" not "Superstars" or "Knockouts". The way its advertised is not how it must be used here.
    • And no, things dont just get added to the guide, they are discussed first. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no discussion of capitalization in that link regarding match names. No consensus established. As such, it is up to the editor to choose which style they prefer. As I wrote the article with the advertisement of the matches in mind, TNA used the style listed in the article through my edits. The only difference between Hell in a Cell and Six Man Tag Team match is the level of advertisement and importance. Otherwise they are exactly the same, as matches they have proper names. For an encyclopedia, the articles should look professional and Six Man Tag Team match looks more professional than six-man tag team match.
• If it was a consensus then changes to the template and style guide would have been made. Neither were made. That section details only changes to chronology. That does not justify your edits to events that happened before and after, only ones that happened in that event namesake. I don't care either way on this one, but per the template there was no consensus. You'll have to go to the project to get an agreement that a consensus was established for your edits in full.
• You removed a citation here and replaced a template This is just the first one I found. You were reverting not out of policy but just because you didn't like my edits to articles you wish to OWN.
• "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." - I dispute the table, you wish to include it. That is clear as it can be made. You need to get a consensus.
• The GA review was an agreement between editors that the content of the article established an consensus that it was at a particular quality. Any changes after that consensus, need a new consensus if they are disputed. The standing consensus is that review. You wish to change, see ONUS. If you claim 3 editors is a consensus, I claim 2 editors is a consensus.
• "Just because a company capitalized something it does not mean Wikipedia follows." See articles TNA Knockouts. Actually yes, if the company calls something by a particular name that is what it is. You don't get to say otherwise. The only reason we don't call them Superstars is because of Jargon and In U. Match names are exceptions to those policies. We don't call it hell in a cell, last man standing, inferno match, etc. We capitalize the words because they are proper names. Redirects exist for these names. There has never been a discussion on these match names because there never has needed to be one. All editors do things differently. I did them this way to match what the company did and to match the prose of the article. This wasn't disputed during the review or for the years afterwards. You're the only one disputing it because WP:IDL.
• Per ONUS, you have to establish the consensus to include the material. There is no consensus that match names are a particular way. You're excuse is it has always been done this way which isn't true. I never did it that way and there wasn't a dispute. In fact, that excuses falls under WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT: When you want to make a change but you are turned down by the reasoning that "We always do it this way" or "This is how it was done in x article" Beyond that, it was a random ip that changed the names in the tables 1. It wasn't a user. It wasn't a discussion. They were one way and then changed. I am disputing that edit and per WP:EDITCONSENSUS a new consensus has to be established to overrule the previous version agreed upon by the GA review between editors. The template, I don't really care about. I don't see a reason to do the pipelinks but like above your section only has an example for the events for before and after by years say Lockdown 07 and 09 for the 08 article but says nothing for Sacrifice and Destination X that happen around it. You'll have to get a consensus for those changes. As for the table, the MOS overrules you entirely on that manner. We've already gone over this entirely and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Prose clearly says "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Tables which are mainly links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated." I even brought up sporting events last time that have the commentators listed as prose. We are the only ones that have ever used tables in any manner and the TNA articles never used the tables. They're WP:LISTCRUFT. The mention of the shows being on Impact Plus don't need to be in the lead of every article. Being avaiable for streaming isn't in the lead in any movie article, sporting event, etc unless that is what they are released on. You don't see Disney Plus in the lead of Avengers: Endgame or Netflix on Avengers: Infinity War. It should be placed in the aftermath section at minimum like I did and like Endgame did with Disney plus by having it in the home media section. This is where it stands. I'll concede the template discussion for chronology but you don't have preceding and after events. The table is against MOS and there is no consensus to include it in the first place. There is no consensus for the match names and consistency with the prose overrules the change anyway. I dispute the change and the established agreement for the style stands. You'll need a consensus to change it per ONUS.--WillC 21:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SG as a whole was discussed in its entirety. There was a presentation of what it should look like and no one objected to the capitalization. If you don't like it, open the discussion.
  • Again you are misusing ONUS. You are not arguing the inclusion of the information, you are arguing the method for which to include it. ONUS is irrelevant in this discussion.
  • You stated The GA review was an agreement between editors that the content of the article established an consensus that it was at a particular quality. Any changes after that consensus, need a new consensus if they are disputed. The standing consensus is that review. Your view appears to be inaccurate and not based on anything whatsoever. Nothing even remotely close to what you said appears in WP:GA. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You undid an improved article and reverted it back to a subpar article under an erroneous title "NWA National Heavyweight Champion" with a lazy click of the undo. The championship name was changed to NWA National Championship in October 2018. So you just reverted it back under a false title for the article. The redirect is on the wrong page. The entire article is now incorrect. Nice work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorRock (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorRock: You did a copy and paste move rather than following the guidelines set forth in WP:RM. Nice work. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Against All Odds (2008), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brother Ray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Galatz! Hope you're well and having a good 2020 so far. I'm reaching out as I've requested a few more updates to the New York Life Insurance article on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink. They're straightforward and similar to requests you and others helped review in 2018. Specifically, my request proposes updating financial figures and number of employees, Fortune 500 ranking, and ratings by the four independent rating companies. I was wondering if you might have some time to review it. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Naveed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Naveed. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Celestina007 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AEWFanboy 04:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEWFanboy (talk • contribs)

@AEWFanboy: I assume you are talking about [18] which is not garbage. Its called policy. Learn to follow them. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you learn to not be a dickhead then... AEWFanboy 20:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEWFanboy (talk • contribs)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raw (WWE brand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWF World Martial Arts Heavyweight Championship was world title why you cut world title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.58.81.211 (talk • contribs)

@31.58.81.211: Based on? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I been on here for a mere 25 days and I created a page and tried to edit some pages and update some stuff on my down time cause most of the wikipedians on here don't update anything. And I see why cause you're always reverting everything they put up including my stuff. I'm not the only one with that issue, I see all over your talk page it has even made it on to reddit wikipedia (r/wikipedia). Ok I get that Grizzled Young Veterans weren't didn't use that name for like 2 weeks into their tag title run but I can't even put a link to their page despite them having that name in their tag title run not even put a link through "and"??? I noticed when GYV page got approved you started deleting 65% of the stuff from it. I find that honestly really petty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatprowrestlingnovaig (talk • contribs)

@Thatprowrestlingnovaig: Perhaps if you read the comments when you were reverted you would understand. Or perhaps you could ask me questions rather than coming aggressively. The word "and" should NEVER be linked. Read WP:EASTEREGG and you will see why. The correct course of action on your part, rather than just trying to cram something where it doesnt belong is to create James Drake and Zack Gibson and have that page redirect to the GYV.

Since you are admitting you are new, perhaps you should have considered that you do not know everything, and you should ask questions to people who have been around for a while.

Take a look at WrestleMania 34 and see how Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn are linked in match 10. Are they linked individually and then the word "and" linked to the joint page? No it links just to the tag team page. Now look down at match 13, how are Cesaro and Sheamus linked? Are they linked the way you were or the way I mentioned? Keep looking around, see what you see, you will see this is the way things are linked, which complies with WP:SEAOFBLUE. Learn how things work before you just start editing and being nasty to people. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron man match, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eddie Edwards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:El Gaucho Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what you delete world title سپهر 301 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years, dawg. That' all. AEWFanboy^talk 19:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AEWFanboy: I have no idea what you are talking about. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, tbh because you never think you're doing anything wrong. You're a very toxic editor in the pro wrestling side of Wikipedia. Always have been. You try to control pages to how you want them to be and it's so annoying, especially towards new editors and makes them feel unwelcomed. You're definetly not alone in this as there are a handful of others also, but yeah... actually stop it. AEWFanboy^talk 23:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AEWFanboy: So let me get this straight, we should throw WP:PW/SG out the window, start ignoring all Wikipedia policies, just because you said so? Great idea! Why follow the guidelines when we could also not. Great plan! Maybe instead you should listen to more experienced editors and ask questions, and read the reasons for revisions so you can learn and help improve. But why blame yourself, good point. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I've been editing just as long as you. You've always been this way. Not just "enforcing policy" as you say, but controlling and edit warring to keep the version of the page you want. I've seen many people complain about you for this, so your sarcastic I'm better than you schtick isn't going to work. AEWFanboy^talk 01:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AEWFanboy, you wrote to Galatz: "I've been editing just as long as you" I call BS. Here's your stats:

You: 256 edits since: 2019-11-20,

Galatz: autoreviewer, patroller, reviewer, 104516 edits since: 2009-05-29

According to that you're a newbie. You should stop attacking Galatz. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good job @Valjean: you figured out what a new account is. I've been been editing since 2010, so I know what I'm talking about. Your bully the new guy thing isn't going to work on me. I have no issue with you, but Galatz has been overbearing and controlling to a dickish level for many years. Don't get mad at me for simply pointing it out. AEWFanboy^talk 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the comment on your talk page [19] says it all. Clearly I am not the one out of line. I am editing in a way that follows Wikipedia guidelines and rules, and when I edit I point to it when doing it. If you don't like being told that you did something wrong, there is nothing I can do to help you. Wikipedia is about collaboration, not confrontation. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is about collaboration, not confrontation."

Yes 👏👏👏 Please do everybody a favor and follow your own advice. AEWFanboy^talk 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with my Wrestling page I made on the wrestling Company championship Wrestling from Arizona show WrestlinGGuyJJ (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read https://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/2020-03-25/article/triple-h-preview and https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2882740-nxt-takeover-tampa-bay-matches-scheduled-for-usa-network-starting-april-1 and https://www.si.com/wrestling/2020/03/24/wwe-nxt-takeover-matches-usa-network-tv before changing the dates for NXT TakeOver: Tampa Bay. These shows will begin airing on April 1st but will be filmed before they air (like all upcoming WWE programming). Any help finding a credible source on the taping date would be very helpful.

Thanks -- Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: The reason I changed the title of Fury Road (2019), which you changed back, is because of the use of "MLW" in the name at the related MLW Fury Road. That is an inconsistency which needs to be fixed. You probably know more about wrestling than me so I will leave to you, but one of those article titles should be changed so they correspond in some fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: This is the standard that was discussed many years ago and agrees upon naming conversion. For example if you look at WWE Money in the Bank you will see the main page has "WWE" in the title, but none of the individual years do. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]