User talk:Mogomaniac

thanks for the laugh
That revert comment on Matt Hardy? Hilarious! Because 1) that is what I am working on 2) I am being slowed down doing so by having to deal with an editor who thinks he owns the article. 3) I am trying to correct an error, you are trying to keep a name that has not bee used since 1995 - which one of us is trying to make wikipedia better? Read the company article, read any intelligent source on AAA please instead of this kneejerk reaction when someone makes a change. Oh and finally also read WP:OWN and consider your actions and comments on the Hardy article.  MPJ  -DK 18:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No mocking intended, but yes some annoyance with your tone and ownership behavior. So my "case" is that it changed names over 20 years ago. Now I am not sure what your case actually is, you basically stated "nope" over and over. Tell me, is it making Wikipedia BETTER to perpetuate an outdated name amd block attempts at fixing an error? Not in my book, callled it like I see it for this specific instance, I said nothing about your general work here because I don't know it nor care to research it.  MPJ  -DK 20:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Please don't move articles without firm sources, especially about "terrorist attacks" '' Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 2017 Manchester Arena incident. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop and discuss on the Talk page or you will be blocked Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Visa requirements for British citizens has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. --Twofortnights (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Reading F.C.. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
Hello, I'm Nicnote. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Nigel Farage, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  12:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Widr (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CNN. ''If you keep up this sort of behaviour you will eventually be blocked permanently. You need to stop clowning around if you want to stay.'' DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Natural-born American


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Natural-born American. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Birthright citizenship in the United States. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Birthright citizenship in the United States. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2017
Hello, there mogomaniac! I've seen your edit summaries with Braintastic and see here is the thing he is new to wikipedia and doesn't know the rules. Instead of replying to their comments its better to give them a link of WP CIVIL or three-revert rules, I'm not saying that you were wrong but try to ignore these kinds of issues in the future. And by the way I wanted to add the Heyman's announcement in the article's matches section too, so thank you for that as well. 😀 Pure conSouls (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and you are welcome! 😀 Mogomaniac (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam Cole - Source Needed
I see you have a history of adding information to articles without sourcing it. You added that Adam Cole has signed with the WWE and will be in NXT. Something like that needs a source. If you don't source it, it will potentially be removed. Looking at the rest of your talk page, this has been an issue. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:PW/RS. As you can clearly see, Wrestling Inc. is on the list of non-reliable sources.  Find a better source.  Don't be lazy.  Format the source.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Your recent editing history at The Shield (professional wrestling) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LM2000 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 05:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and personal attacks, as you did at The Shield (professional wrestling). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC) This comment in the edit summary was out of line - comment on the content, not other editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Club (professional wrestling) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Club (professional wrestling) 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 Articles for deletion/The Club (professional wrestling) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Feed back  08:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?
There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)