User talk:Dilbaggg

Archives

Archive 1

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful in using terms like these. They indicate that there has been across the board praise of a particular thing. Including individual reviews of something doesn't meet that description. For us to say it's received such wide-ranging praise we'd need a source that actually describes it as much. For example, your BR source is just a single positive review. There could be 100 negative reviews that aren't mentioned, which is why we can't use that description. — Czello ^(music) 13:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello Well you are welcome to give the negative reviews, please add sources of the positive reviews for Steamboat vs Savage. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't provide the negative reviews because that contravenes WP:ONUS. Ultimately for something to be described as "critically acclaimed" the source needs to support that. As for Steamboat vs Savage - if there's issues with those sources, then they need improving. We don't lower the quality of an article to that standards. — Czello ^(music) 13:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello Acyually Savage vs Steamboatt is a pure Wp:OR statement not citing a single source for it being one of the best ever (it was and there are sources but no one bothered adding them), but you seem keen on selectively targeting my edits rather than improve the overall article. Anyway I won't add those terms, but please do not remove every source that did praise them such as TJR and SI which meet Wp:RS criteria. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not selectively targeting your edits, they popped up on my Watchlist so I addressed the issues with them, simple as that. If you feel there are similar issues elsewhere in the article, I encourage you to locate and fix them. — Czello ^(music) 14:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, @Czello, However well forbes did use the term, but I was told before the website isn't as reliable as the magazine so I won't add it back, just noted the positive response and didn't use the term again, thank you very much. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where Forbes is concerned, it's not that the website is unreliable, just "Forbes contributors". Basically, if you look under the author of whoever wrote the article, if it says "Forbes staff" then it's reliable. If it says "Forbes contributor" then it's unreliable. — Czello ^(music) 14:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dilbaggg, are you doing alright? To be frank, I noticed you've been acting, well, somewhat strangely on your talk page. I am talking about your repeated actions of making small changes to a discussion from two months ago and immediately undoing your own edit. If you're not done with the discussion, it's perfectly fine to restart it. Besides, it's your talk page and you can undo your own edits as much as you'd like. Hope everything is okay. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

soetermans You must be here for my edit on GTA LCS, well my talk page my choice, but please don't be hostile over my edit at GTA LCS. I know I said I won't edit GTA articles but that was a disagreement about a different GTA not LCS which I edited before too and you were accepting on those, anyway am sorry about our issues in the past and hope we can work together to positively contribute to articles on Wikipedia. At the end of the day we are all humans and we make error but try our best to improve.. In case you leave future message I am editing today after a long gap and will be away for a long time again after today (at least thats what I expect, plans might change). Dilbaggg (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@soetermans Anyways thanks for checking out bro and really sorry about all the stupid allegations I gave in the EW issue few months back, I understand my mistake and hope all is well with you too bro, really nice hearing from you. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather silly deletion. It's not a "mention both or mention neither" situation. We mentioned that Ronda became a wrestler, but Mr T didn't. That's the purpose of the sentence. Deleting it because you don't get your own way is disruptive, please don't do it. — Czello ^(music) 16:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello then please only write about Ronda and the other two rather then mentioning all their name, she along with the other two did it. Its already at WM 35 section! Dilbaggg (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello Bro hope the current version of it suits you; cheers.. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting a WHOLE conversations of 12k characters is both against talk page guidelines and outright disruptive. If you want to make small quotes, please use the {{tq}} template — Czello ^(music) 14:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello ok thanks, i will try it out. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello bro i used the quotation format you gave, hope its ok now. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, [really not]. I think you've included the nowiki tags. Also you've still copied and pasted a whole conversation - I'm not sure why and no one's going to read that. — Czello ^(music) 14:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello ok I am trying to fix the quotation, but please don't go deleting it due to poor qutation formatting error! Dilbaggg (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed it just to save on space. — Czello ^(music) 14:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello ok thanks bro it looks much better now. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well am out for today, good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're now introducing non-neutral language into the article - please don't. — Czello ^(music) 08:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello Bro even tho I am giving up on the article, (reasons given on WM 32 article), but using NYT source is in no way non neutral, please do not make misleading claims, those who review the edits can judge, anyway bro do whatever you want, this history revisioniom will only tarnish Wikipedia and just when people were starting to respect Wikipedia people would go back laughing at it as unreliable again, no wonder Wp:PW is under Wp:GS, anyway bro nothing personal and I understand your hard works you are a great e3ditor but are blinded by this misleading cancer of the wrestling world called Dave Meltzer. I hope you realize Meltzer's flaws someday (like the 2014 false claim Punk was coming back), good day! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Meltzer published the 90k+ as a valid source the 80k+ is just a simple tweet! Dilbaggg (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dilbaggg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:GTA: Long Night, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed there and edited. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cena–Orton rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cena–Orton rivalry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you mean by removing original research in a video game plot? Plots in general aren't supposed to be cited, and I see you noticed a small error but you reverted an entire paragraph and quite a bit of copyediting. It's a bit confusing to me. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 11:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RetroCosmos The heist was done after CJ, Woozie and Ran Fa Li already established their casino business by Fish in a Barell, the heist was not necessary to set up the casino as you misleadingly made out cause of WP:Fancruft of the optional heist missions, we trim and include the main stuff only, just because you are a fan of the Caligulia's heist doesn't make it Wp:Notable over other events such as retaking Madd Dogg's mansion from Big Poppa and the Vagos. Point is the four dragon casino was already established long before the heist but you made it sound like it was established after the heist. Good day and wish you all the best on Wikipedia. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to cast aspersions, at least make sure you get your facts straight. I didn't write it, I only did some copyediting. That being said, I don't necessarily agree that it's fancruft, though if it's not part of the any% plot it's probably not necessary to include. I'm not sure the relevance of wp:notable given that it's a test for entire article topics. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you understand the guidelines now, all the best to you too. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with respect, I don't think you have a very solid understanding of the guidelines, and your work on San Andreas may be jeopardizing Rhain's efforts at promoting it to GA status. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 17:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was as per guidelines, only reason it was trimmed was to keep it short, and I accept it, but I seen your latest edits and you are now a good editor, congratulations, don't forget me when you get to the top XD, cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dilbaggg, I’m hoping you can help me understand why you reverted my edits on TKO Group. In your first edit summary, you said “Wikipedia is not a place for censorship, you can’t remove Vince just cause you feel like it!“. Per my edit summaries, I was attempting to address all of the future-tense that appears in the Formation section. It seems to have been written at a time when coverage was just becoming available, but in 2024 we have what we need to re-write the section in a manner more becoming of an encyclopedia. In my edits, I tried to reword or trim things like “merger would mark”, “Endeavor was expected,” and other speculative information that didn’t bear out. Can you help me understand your concerns with this approach?

I’m also confused as to why you would revert my edits about WWE being headquartered in Stamford and WrestleMania becoming pay-per-view, which I added along with reliable sources. You didn’t provide an edit summary so it would be great to understand your objections.

Thank you for your time! ToucanSam1017 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]