User talk:Galatz/Archive 2019

Thanks man
I just want to thank you for adding all the short summaries of articles. Good to see someone doing the job!★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I recently found a script that helps doing it, so it makes life a lot easier. Right now I am adding them to pages as they go through my watchlist, but I hope to soon go back and do the other events too, I just need time to do it :-). -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Nexus 5X Undo
Hi,

you undid the edit where I added the Nexus 5X model LG-H791F because it is "unsourced". I have the physical device in front of my face :)

Here are pictures of the model number: http://i67.tinypic.com/4tu347.jpg http://i67.tinypic.com/2ns9mi8.jpg

I cannot upload images to Wikipedia without an account so I was not able to add them as a source. I actually don't even know to which place in Wikipedia I should upload them anyway.

Can you deal with this? You can license these pictures as liberal as possible.

FYI: I have also emailed LG to ask them what this device is, but I have not received an answer yet.

Thanks!
 * That is considered WP:OR -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The official LG website lists the phone with the model number I've provided, it's the first Google search result for it.
 * I've hereby amended the article with proper citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nexus_5X&type=revision&diff=879540156&oldid=879029886
 * If something about the syntax of the citation does not suit your quality standards I would be grateful if you could fix it instead of deleting it, I think I spent enough time on this ;) Thank you!

On air personalities
I never assumed that JoJo was done completely but WWE announced that ring announcers for Royal Rumble will be Mike Rome and Greg Hamilton so where does that leave JoJo? And Mike Rome said himself on his social media that he was heading to RAW as well so thus JoJo is expected to miss another week. My edit was merely trying to say she hasn't been on TV and is possible that she is just taking some time away. Since she hasn't been on RAW in 3 weeks, that should be a break in dates she was announcing as I have seen on other personalities on the page and when she returns, her return date-present can be edited to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachad01 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The page has a ton of WP:OR issues. Nothing should be added to wikipedia without a WP:RS. Just because other stuff was done wrong, doesn't mean more incorrect stuff should be added as well. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

royal rumble 1989
Why not recognize the record set there of three teams drawing consecutive numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan909 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because its WP:TRIVIA. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove flags?
Flags are identities of every country. Why did you remove flags from WWE Raw page? Bilal190023 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Give Answer
Why did you remove flags from WWE Raw page? Bilal190023 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Becuase that is not how wikipedia presents things. WP:MOS -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

SVU: Season 2: Episode: Manhunt 2001
1. Have You seen Episode Manhunt recently?

2. Would You be Able to Answer my Questions correctly if Posible?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
 * I have no idea what you are talking about -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your name was In the Revision History for SVU Season 2 Wikipedia?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
 * This is a long term troll Galatz, please ignore him and remove any further posts-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Global Warning
Please do not give Global Warning so much weight on the Professional wrestling in Australia page. It has already been established that what is there now after my reversion is the correct weight. Global Warning was not shown on pay per view - this was clearly established on the talk page some time ago. There are no reliable sources that say otherwise. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Giving it space on another page is not undue weight. Beginning in 2013 TNA did special episodes of Impact Wrestling. The ones that did not share the name of a former pay-per-view did not get included elsewhere on Wikipedia, but those did, it was notable enough for inclusion there (see Hardcore Justice as an example). Including it in its own section there is not WP:UNDUE. I did not say it aired on PPV, I am just saying it is notable enough for inclusion on another page, which this page seems appropriate for. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Global Warning was nothing more than a glorified house show. Don't insult the Impact special eps like that! LEAVE IT! Addicted is right. It's undue weight. Doesn't deserve it's own section. Your edit DID say it was on pay by the way! 203.15.226.132 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * STOP! It's not notable! Stop giving it space it hasn't earned! What's there now is the right balance! Got it?? 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others, the massive section has no place on the Professional wrestling in Australia page. The current mention gives it due weight.LM2000 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! 203.15.226.132 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes this any different than the TNA example above? It was a supercard, so not just a house show. A small paragraph with the card doesn't give it undue weight, it was a very large scale event. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Supercard?? WTAH?? It was a house show! A glorified house show, but a house show! 203.15.226.132 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's some expectation that you'll find detailed sections about related events on something like Destination X. It doesn't make any sense to me to have one WWE event given more weight than anything else on an article about the history of wrestling in Australia. It has been to AfD four times now and has always ended in delete, not merge.LM2000 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an alternative suggestion at Talk:Professional wrestling in Australia.LM2000 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WWE Evolution
So according to this, everything that occur on each episode of Raw and SmackDown could be unsourced? THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In theory. Its always better to source it in line, but its incorrect to say its unsourced. If it mentions the show and episode, its the WP:PRIMARY source. Look at plot sections of TV shows and movies, its the same basic idea. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  22:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Just wanted to let you know that it could be valid as I haven't checked the details. However, they are well known for having incorrect information. But as you are an editor in good standing you are welcome to readd it. Just wanted to let you know that we remove all edits from block evaders even if their edits are good as leaving them encourages the evader to continue evading their block when their edits are left. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Before I reverted I checked it out and spot checked about 5 which seemed to be correct. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Female titles
Hello, Galatz. As you can see, an IP is messing around with female titles. He changes the IP every day, so waht do you think? Should we ask for protection? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * probably couldn't hurt -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ROH 17
Just some friendly advice...no one appointed you Wikipedia's judge, jury, and executioner, so quit acting like it.

You think something needs a source, just add a citation instead of wiping everything out. That's what they are there for.

You have this "smartest guy in the room" attitude when it comes to Wiki policies...don't take this the wrong way, but if you took that attitude out into the real world, you would get decked, because no one likes a know-it-all (and no, I'm not threatening you - I'm just trying to make a point).

You're no better than me, I'm no better than you, so please stop always felling the need to get up on a high horse and acting like you're the great savior of Wikipedia.

Thank you

Vjmlhds (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be added to Wikipedia without a source. You know the rules yet continually ignore them because you don't feel like following them. If you were required to do something for your job and just continually didn't because you did not feel like it, you would get fired. I don't know why you think Wikipedia should be any different. If you don't like following the policies then why edit here? Its attitudes like yours that wound up with PW getting general sanctions. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be added to Wikipedia without a source – Actually, that's not true. Everything needs to be verifi able, not necessarily verifi ed at the time it's added. That's why we have . EEng 18:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Its nice of you to jump into the middle of a conversation, with no knowledge of the topic and why we are having the conversation. Put since you feel the need to, WP:V states All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Yet twice added back content I removed for not being sourced, without adding one. So clearly it was challenged and no source was added. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  18:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, and I know all that, but that's not what you said. You said Nothing should be added to Wikipedia without a source, which isn't true. And knowing you and your history, it's probably worthwhile for me to quote another bit of WP:V:
 * Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
 * That's a lot different from everything-unsourced-can-and-should-be-removed. EEng 18:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So unless the word "should" has changed in meaning, you are saying the same thing as me. Glad you spent all that time and energy to agree with me. You also have not looked at the edits that let to this, otherwise you would realize your points are meaningless. Fake matches are added by people to wikipedia event articles all the time, as you know these type of professional wrestling articles are frequently vandalized. Therefore anything added to these without sources are very often fake. Therefore, rather than just deleting everything I hid the content until a source could be added, and indicated that was my intention. Then Vjmlhds removed the hide and sourced 2 out of the 5 items. The logical conclusion is that they were unable to source the other content as well, which is why this time I deleted it. I gave more than ample time for a source to be added, and judging by the fact that these sort of things are often added as a form of vandalism, deleting it was the correct thing to do. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (a) No, the text I quoted does not, as you claim, say the same thing as your nothing should statement; (b) I was responding only to your statement, not the larger situation, which as you say I know nothing about; (c) I won't be responding further. EEng 21:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to set the record straight, I did source every item in the article. I just couldn't do it all in one shot because I have a life (you know...that little thing people do in the real world) and had to attend to other matters.  And the fact you even brought up vandalism (as if to imply something), really grinds my gears.  Deleting was NOT the correct thing to do - you just wanted to play hall monitor. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear you wrote where to find them all here, so you had time to look them up but not enough time to copy the ref to the respective lines. Yeah that makes sense. I also want to point out that you unhid to and then 14 hours later is when I made my edit . In that time your "life" seems to have involved editing out pages according to . But sure, what you said. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  16:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You sure do seem to be obsessed with how I spend my time. In the real world, that's called stalking. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, just emphasizing my point. Something you would have done too, but since it was against you, you are just deflecting instead. On Wikipedia, just like in real life, you should prevent evidence rather than just saying what you want as of its fact. It shouldn't be surprising that you don't back up what you say, since you don't think references are needed on Wikipedia either. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have probably added 1,500 some odd references to the place in over 10 years...you gonna ride me for not IMMEDIATELY doing so on one article because I got sidetracked...come on, man. You are not some great savior of Wikipedia, and it isn't your job to play Wiki-cop...so knock off the holier-than-thou attitude, OK. You're not impressing anybody. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You just keep proving my point. Just remember this - no matter how much you love Wiki policies, they will never love you back.  Only one with the attitude here is you.  Vjmlhds (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right...you just have a high horse, which is why you have been blocked from wikipedia 10 times. Yeah it must just be me, and all those blocking admins. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what "high horse" means? It means to proclaim as loud as you can how you are the paragon of virtue and all that is right with the world, and that it's your job...nay duty to keep us poor plebeians in line.  Since you seem to have an obsession with my blocks, I don't have an issue following rules, it's people that think they are the ones bestowed by God to enforce them (when they are really in no position to act in such a way).  You wonder why people like  constantly mock you...it's for the reasons I laid out...you act like some sort of Wiki zealot or like Gomer Pyle screaming "Citizen's Arrest!" at Barney Fife.  I bet if your house caught on fire, you'd tell the fire department to leave because they didn't have a reference for the hose.  Vjmlhds (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, you figured me out. I am so proud of you. You know everything. Thats why you are above the rules. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you can marry the first woman who's impressed with the fact you have all the Wiki policies memorized. I bet you have them tattooed all over you.  Vjmlhds (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Defiant World Championship
G4 is for reposts, not new pages on the same topics, and the content is completely different. If you can't see the deleted content, don't tag it for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

‎Last and next event
Because otherwise we display the event name three times at the bottom and I thought thatvwas xumb. The info box already tells you what show series it is, no need to repeat it. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that but perhaps you want to propose a change consistently across all pages so things are set up in a standard way. For example, you currently are doing the GA review on WrestleMania IV. The WM section there does not say III for last and V for next. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Ibwill get around to the minutia of that. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ali
Thanks for reverting this. How stupid of a name though. Soon everyone in WWE is only going to have a first or last name lol. I just wish people would use edit summaries though.. The person I reverted has been on thin ice for unsourced content for awhile. StaticVapor message me!   19:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would have done the same thing if I didnt see it on CSS yesterday. Its a pretty bad one. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have had issues with that user in other topics outside of PW before. Been seeing them around for years -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have tried to report to AIV for unsourced changes twice now, if next time does not work it will probably be going to ANI. If it does I'll drop you a notification in case you wanna share your 2 cents there. StaticVapor message me!   22:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Lozansky
Hi Galatz, Why do you consider that Mike Lozansky was not a notable wrestler? He had lot of success internationally and did very well in Canada, Japan and Mexico. He also had tenures with USWA and ECW. I understand that he was a jobber. Why does Chris Duffy (wrestler) have a profile if he was not a notable wrestler? Or is it not referenced enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingzwest (talk • contribs)
 * I see no evidence of in depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Do you have evidence to refute this? Can you provide 3 sources that a WP:RS that discuss him that are not WP:ROUTINE sources? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now changed it up with the references and the external links.
 * Every one of those sources are WP:ROUTINE. It lacks WP:SIGCOV. Databases that cover literally everything can not be used to substantiate notability. Take a look at WP:PW/RS. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates
You aren't worth violating 3RR over, but let me say this - you have this hang-up about templates. I feel templates are a cop out for editors who want to play Wiki-snob and "critique" articles, but are too lazy to ACTUALLY fix it to their tastes. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you aren't supposed to remove templates without addressing the issue, just saying you could tag everything is not a reason. Second, WP:PW/SG recommends keeping the section to 1,000 words and its over 2,500 which is ridiculous. Third, I do work on cutting back on the fluff all the time but its useless until after the event is over because the IP editors keep adding useless stuff back in. After the fact, its a much cleaner time to go through a remove stuff, but you are welcome to do it sooner if you would like. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

AAA Invading NY
Please show me where the consensus is for this tripe. And if that is really a text arrived at by consensus, y'all can also decide to replace "matches" (which smacks of sport and competition) with "scripted events". That whole paragraph reads like K-pop. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly it is part of the professional wrestling style guide, which you can read the events part here WP:PW/PPV/G. The most recent discussion occurred I believe as part of this discussion Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_145 in which it was brought up a couple times. But its been discussed countless times in various places, such as at WT:PW and consensus has always been we need to disclaimer. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That first link, I know it: you and I participated in that. I don't see where it discusses this stuff; it's an entirely different matter. I see the guideline, and while I think that guideline is a weird kind of disclaimer (and that we shouldn't have disclaimers in the first place), what's really redundant in the section you restored is that the thing hasn't happened yet, and that language such as "The show will feature..." is trite. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops my mistake. It was discussed in the AN discussion that led to GS, not the VPP discussion. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299 -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Thank you Galatz!
Hello there Galatz. I wanted to personally thank you for the hard work you have been putting into professional wrestling articles. You are amazing to work with on this encyclopedia. I have in the past had disagreements on how things work here, but I am very happy that I've been helpful for you and that youve been helpful for me. At first I saw you as a little bit mean over small incidentss like for instance you deleting other user comments on the Neville move proposal, but quickly found out you were a kind, amazing wikipedian to work on the wikiproject with. My applogies for not helping out on the March focus of the month afer suggesting it, life got really busy and began biting my ass and I didn't have much time to do that, spending my free time doing things like video gaming and spending time with people I care about. Hopefully soon, however, I can start tackling some of those event sections. Anyway thank you Galatz, youre an amazing guy to work with here. Have an amazing day. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor
The events have yet to occur see WP:CRYSTALBALL. This means the edit you have reverted is subject to contrent removal. As for the properly sourced information I “moved”, as I said earlier was already mentioned and sourced above so I did not move it. The content removed from the article is only the future events. Fountainroots (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated before, CRYSTALBALL does not apply to the flagship store closure announcement. And there are several other problems with your edits, see Talk:Lord_%26_Taylor. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A company announcing they will close 10 stores does not fall into WP:CRYSTAL. This is about 20% of their stores so its pretty significant, and its properly sourced. This is acceptable for inclusion. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara


A tag has been placed on Category:IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. DannyS712 (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Imperium (professional wrestling)
Hello Galatz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Imperium (professional wrestling), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having multiple notable members indicates significance. Thank you. So Why  12:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not WP:INHERITED. There is not notability of a group of people teaming together for 1 show so far. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:A7 is explicitly not about notability, so the same standards do not apply. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you re-read the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. Regards  So  Why  12:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reading of A7. This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event[7] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. There is absolutely not show why the group has any important or significance. Having notable members does not make the group significant. Would you say a company started by someone notable would automatically disqualify it from A7? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. The point of A7 is to weed out subjects clearly not worthy of inclusion. A strong association with a notable subject means there might be something there that warrants further discussion (see also this RFC consensus). Per WP:ATD (which also applies to speedy deletion), deletion is not the correct course of action if alternatives are viable and in cases with such association, alternatives are almost always conceivable. A company founded by someone notable? Merge to their article. A team active in a notable promotion? Redirect or merge to a list of such teams. A creator of a notable webcomic? Redirect to the comic's article. The list goes on. In fact, whenever a notable entity is strongly associated with a topic, chances are high that the topic should be mentioned somewhere even if not notable on its own and thus should fail A7. And since speedy deletion should only be used in the most obvious cases, it should not be used if the topic seems potentially worthy of inclusion anywhere. Whether that's the case here is for AFD to decide. Hope that clears it up but feel free to ask more questions. I've been doing those kinds of deletions for a loooong time now, so I got some hopefully useful knowledge stored away somewhere Regards  So  Why  14:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did already nominate it with a AFD. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE NXT UK Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WWE NXT UK Logo.jpg. 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) 03:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong reign statistics in List of WWE United States Champions
About this edit... You reverted my edit without explenation. The article says that Bret Hart won title on August 11, 1998 but there is no source supporting that. I even checked the Internet and Wikipedia is the only place that says the episode with Hart winning title was recorded two days earlier. And it's all about supposed recording date so we can't consider it to be in primary source. Don't you think that nothing should be added to Wikipedia without a source? --Czarnybog (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MITB
Hey there. I noticed you mention that both Sportskeeda and Forbes are not RS. How can that be? If I list their reviews and ticket prices (which is on Forbes), does that mean those figures are not reliable? A database like cagematch.net can be edited by users, so it isn't reliable either. If so, can you help me out with what sources to use as this is the first wrestling article I am working on to take to GA. Thank you. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Sportskeeda and Forbes are listed as unreliable on our Wikiproject, see WP:PW/RS. Both do not qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. That would make their reviews/opinions not significant or notable and make it that we cannot trust any of their information. Consensus for cagematch.net is that it cannot be used for any BLP information (names, birthdays, etc.), but it is fine for match results. Also just so you know, as far as I am aware, cagematch is not available for public editing. Only suggestions can be offered, which are then verified by a select few before being added. StaticVapor message me!   07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WWE Raw and MOS:BOLDLEAD
You are missing this part of the section you linked:

This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that is redirected to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not: (emphasis mine)

A bold term does not necessarily have to appear exclusively in the lead (see Slim Shady in Eminem, the IE1 protocol in high-intensity interval training, MultiVision 235 in Techniscope).

Alternatively, Raw Is War could be added to the lead. - DoubleCross (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But that does not apply here. Raw was divided into 2 different names for rating purposes for a period of time. Raw is War and War Zone together made up Raw. So what you are doing is the equivalent to bolding the term First Half in a football game. This is spelled out in detail in the production section of the article. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't really care what the production section says right now, particularly since the history section says that Raw was renamed Raw Is War. Regardless, something in the article needs to change, given the disconnect/contradiction. - DoubleCross (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Tombstone Piledriver
Thanks for fixing my edit on In Your House 13: Final Four. I've updated Tombstone (disambiguation) to include Tombstone Piledriver (which redirects to Piledriver (professional wrestling)) to make it easier for people to find. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

AEW
Please do not change this redirect while a RfD discussion is open it may be seen as being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it will not be. Piping to the actual page over the redirect is a completely reasonable thing to do, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. This does not fit into the criteria in WP:DONOTFIXIT, and the edits are therefore valid, no matter what. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No it is really bad form to do this while a related discussion is open. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to think that, but its not. I have not changed anything with the redirect at all. Piping the links was the correct course of action, regardless of the discussion taking place or not. Based on the number of page views, it is entirely likely that someone will come around and change the redirect again (since it was changed once already), without regard or looking for the discussion. If this happens all of these pages would be pointing to the wrong page. Linking directly to AEW over the full page name does not enhance the article at all. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to accept that it is bad form and possibly WP:POINTy when the discussion is open and you have a clear interest in that discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what? I stated that the redirect should not change, so how do you come to that conclusion? If I was in favor of changing it I could see your point, but I said it should not be changed, so your point makes absolutely no sense. As I explained to you, this should have been piped either way, something you have failed to address or state why I am wrong. If it should be piped regardless of the outcome of the discussion, then its good form edits, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on "I think its best to move the disambiguation page to AEW, for now." and then you proceeed to delink articles from AEW seem like it is related, its more the fact you have done it while a discussion is ongoing that is still bad form. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you still did not address that it was the correct thing to do because it does not meet the criteria of WP:DONOTFIXIT, regardless of the outcome. So you think it should be changed in a few days after the discussion is over? That just seems silly. If it should be changed, regardless of the outcome, then saying it should wait is just silly. When there is a AfD that is clearly going to be deleted, you still make proper edits to the article, because they should be done regardless of the outcome. This is no different. The discussion might have been the reason I noticed them, but they should be changed regardless, so there is no reason to wait until its closed to make the change. You are welcome to not like my timing, that is your choice, but the edits were valid and should be made, and there is no valid reason not to do them now. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * is correct. The AEW RfD discussion is clearly not going your way and your "fix it" arguments here are proving misplaced. Please do not edit any more AEW information in aircraft related articles. If you do I for one will certainly see it as disruptive. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of tag-team editing between you and and that really does not look good either. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame to meet you this way, Galatz. Apparently we are a tag team (appropriate for our interests) when I'm not sure I've ever spoken to you before. Hello then!  starship .paint  (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you. I did not realize until very recently you even edit professional wrestling pages. Looking at besides for the edits yesterday, we have barely interacted, which would make sense.  -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  12:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I told Steelpillow already, I stopped most of my wrestling editing when you joined (re-joined?) WP:PW. Can't be bothered when WWE plainly sucks. The interaction tool isn't working for me at the moment, I'll check it out another time.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It just takes a long time to load, since its checking all our edits. I have edited on WP and pro wrestling articles for 10 years, but started editing more regularly in 2014. I mostly follow the event articles. I only edit the individual wrestler articles if I am going to that page to look at something and see an issue, or am making an across the board edit for something like short descriptions. I can't be bothered having my watchlist filled with IPs adding week by week results constantly. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Frankly, I don't even use my watchlist anymore, when I stopped editing regularly. Still, I've somehow managed to start editing again without it. Unfortunately I will (or hope I will) be editing less. There's a lot of work off-wiki I should be doing :o  starship .paint  (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I just realized removing AEW links actually worsens our case for a redirect change. Because the overall hits to AEW would be less. The baseline was around 500 before All Elite started. Now that I removed airplane AEW links, the baseline will drop. This will affect the total hits and will make additional All Elite AEW look like it has less hits than it already has because the baseline from the airplane AEW dropped. So what you and I were really doing was improving their airplane articles. We've been sabotaging our own future cases for All Elite AEW.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I follow what you mean. Airborne early warning and control had 500 page views. There were only about a dozen articles that linked to AEW out of the about 500 that link to Airborne early warning and control. The AEW page itself had almost no views until January of this year, which shows that All Elite Wrestling has significantly brought up those views, and the day of DoN is the day views spiked. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  13:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh oops. I confused it. You are right. So from 2015-2018, AEW has 10 views per day. From 2019, due to Wrestling, it has 140 views per day. This is great evidence that it's the Wrestling that is much more popular!  starship .paint  (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't try again for at least a year though, and even if I tried again, I'd propose shifting it to AEW (disambiguation), I guess. I finally loaded our edits from 2011-2018 and we only have 9 articles where we edited within a day! So much for being a team.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The question I always ask myself in these sort of things is, if AEW folded today what would happen. In essence its similar to WP:RECENTISM, that current events are forming the opinion. The promotion has had 1 show, so its too early to know how things will play out. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a good point. We’ll see in the future.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXX
Galatz, at least remove the yelping, please?  starship .paint  (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess our messages crossed. I have no idea what you mean by yelping. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) I didn't insert "Undetaker". I can't find it anywhere in my version.
 * (2) I removed this. Lesnar took an early advantage in the match and repeatedly punched Undertaker so hard that Undertaker started yelping - you restored it.
 * (3) The on-screen personnel is original research. The referees are never named, right?
 * (4) What's so special about submissions? They are a standard way of losing. Pin or submit.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 - The T in "the" was made lowercase, but his entire name is The Undertaker, so the T should be capital
 * 2 - This just got in the the series of edits
 * 3 - The event itself is the WP:PRIMARY source, so individual sourcing is not required. For example, if you look at Harry_Potter_and_the_Prisoner_of_Azkaban_(film) or any other show/movie, you will see the item not being referenced in line, why should this be any different?
 * 4 - The style guide at WP:PW/PPVG says If the match ended in submission, disqualification, or countout, it should proceed the example above with: by [decision]. so its always included.
 *  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 - I see. Okay.
 * 2 - Then could you fix that? Since you reverted me already.
 * 3 - films aren't the same as their credits plainly state which actor is which role. I can grant that our commentators are credited with their names on-screen. But are your referees credited in the same way? The broadcast never states who the referees are.
 * 4 - well, I now see Prefall edited this in during 2014. I don't recall that being ever discussed at WT:PW. Why aren't we mentioning pinfall then?  starship .paint  (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the line in question.
 * For submissions, I am not sure about that, we would have to ask him if he remembers why the change. Here is conversation I could find on it . -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sure (3) and (4) will be a topic of discussion at WT:PW. Whenever I feel like writing it up.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sure (3) and (4) will be a topic of discussion at WT:PW. Whenever I feel like writing it up.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Galatz, I forgot to tell you about (5) Sin Cara and Xavier Woods' elimination order from the battle royale. They were never mentioned in the reliable sources, so I didn't mention them.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cameraman
Why? Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my comment of no source to support should be pretty self explanatory. Its WP:OR. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Cyber Sunday (2006) ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cyber_Sunday_%282006%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cyber_Sunday_%282006%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Rory McAllister
 * Unforgiven (2006) ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Unforgiven_%282006%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Unforgiven_%282006%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Rory McAllister
 * WrestleMania 23 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/WrestleMania_23 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/WrestleMania_23?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Rory McAllister

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unintentional and Intentional
You wrote "CZW also was known for blading in some hardcore matches, notably Matt Tremont sometimes unintentionally cut himself." No offense, but do you know the meaning of the word unintentional? Dilbaggg (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didnt write that anywhere, so I have no idea what you are talking about. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake that edit came from an ip and is also unsourced. if its unintentional blood, it is never an act of blading. So removing that sentence from article Blading (professional wrestling). Dilbaggg (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.