User talk:DanteAgusta

Ric Flair

Every title a wrestler has won has been listed under the promotion he or she was wrestling in at the time when the reign began. It's not just with the Ric Flair article, it's with all of them. By your logic, every reign with the NWA World Heavyweight Championship while the title was defended in World Championship Wrestling and then later in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling would be listed under the NWA. This has been debated on the WP:PW's discussion page a few times before. I'm willing to debate it again if you are. I've noticed that you're only making this edit in regards to the Ric Flair article. You haven't made it to any other article of a former NWA World Champion. Odin's Beard (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be taken to the project's discussion page before any further edits are made.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanteAgusta&action=edit

Robert Horne

It's only really a problem because of the negative nature of the addition, wikipedia rules are pretty clear on "contentious" materials. I'm glad to see that you'll find a source for it, because once it's sourced - negative or positive it should be fine to add it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PW List

Hi, I just wanted to convey that (the newest SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY) Colorado's Icon Championship Wrestling is incorrectly listed as an "indy" promotion. Icon Championship Wrestling LLC is a Full Blown Sports Entertainment company, their talent is payed EXCLUSIVELY to entertain. I ask that in an effort to uphold the good will of this article, company, and effort, please edit this information to reflect the facts of this sports entertainment company and all other professional wrestling companies, "indy" or otherwise.

by who's definition? if a company maintains a roster and pays them to work exclusively in sports entertainment (meaning NO other job) is what dictates a companies status as a professional vs. indy it has nothing to do with a "National TV Deal" most SE or indy ferations are strictly territorial (not the case with Icon however) and only maintain their TV contracts within their territory... this does not automatically make them an indy...they simply stay within their market...

as an expert, you should know this...?

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.200.15 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PW list

Much appreciated!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.200.15 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roundtable Wrestling Radio.

I just changed the name of "The Minority Roundtable" on the pro wrestling article back to "Roundtable Wrestling Radio". The show officially changed their name a few months after the show started, and CTIRadio.com has updated their site to show the change. Please do not change the name back. Thank You. Edgehead5150 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Scandals

Wow.. you are watching the page like a hawk! Thank you for helping! Prince of Canada^{t | c} 04:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing what I can to help.--DanteAgusta (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics

Firstly, I would thank you for your support against a beligerent editor. I think User talk:Badagnani is entitled to remove stuff from his own userpage within very wide limits. Deletion is indicative that the user has read the text posted. He has repeatedly deleted text I have written on his talk page, implying that I am not welcome to post there. However, in order to make certain points, I have been forced to post to the article talk page. My appraisal of the situation is that the said user may be in denial, as he is selectively removing stuff which may be unpleasant for him to face. He has a fairly long history of disruptive behaviour, and before long, I will make a complaint against him. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tend to wonder into these things from time to time. Just an odd guy.--DanteAgusta (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the last straw. I prepared my case still hoping that he would see sense. He hasn't, and I've done it. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had his warnings. I tell you what. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and then some, I say! We all left him plenty of rope. It's not often an editor is so stupid to walk himself to the gallows so willingly! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medal table

Would you please stop what is effectively edit warring at this page. Whilst the changes you are making are probably correct, continually undoing the edits of User:Wikipedian06 and others without explaination to them is not helping. Instead of simply undoing them perhaps explaining the changes on the talk page or at Wikipedian06's talk page would have been a more constructive way of doing things. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 13:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the heck are you talking about? --DanteAgusta (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i'm talking about are edits such as this and this. Repeated undoing the good faith edits by other users, even if the material is not correctly sourced or slightly POV is edit warring. As I said explaining the reasons for your actions in a message on the talk pages of the users involved would have been a better way to go about things and may have prevented the material being repeatedly re-added. Basement12 (T.C) 17:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, ok whatever. I simply removed information not properly ref'ed, and tried to do some clean up to a poorly written article.
Ya can deal with what ever edit warring ya got going on. I just want to get the article up to standard.
--DanteAgusta (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the article, the material did need to be removed. I just thought i'd give you a bit of advice on how to handle any similar situations you come across in the future. Basement12 (T.C) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uhm, yeah, ok, whatever. --DanteAgusta (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Holly edits......

So why do you keep removing the edits about Bob Holly of him being inactive due to his pain killer addiction???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goombah55449 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No source. Bottom line. Internet rumor sites are not reliable sources and can not be used as such. Neither the WWE or Bob Holly
have made a statement on where he is. --DanteAgusta (talk)
19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.....ill have to find the source that i got it from and wont repost it until i find it and can cite it properly. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goombah55449 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Hunters

I notice you keep deleting the anon speculations criticizing the show of late, so put in a request for Page Protection of the Ghost Hunters article. This should cut down on the amount of unscoursed opinions that are being added on a daily basis. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking of it, but I am pretty busy and just have not gotten around to it.
--DanteAgusta (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it was declined - the edits aern't persistent enough to warrant it I guess. If it continues though they said to ask again. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much. I think it will subside after a while anyways. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prods

i have removed a few prods you put on articles because they where emptie prods prods must a reason why the article sould be deleted so other editor can see if they agree or disagree with the prods and when it left they northing said no one knows why it was put up there so please take those articles to afd if you want but do not readd the prods back thanksOo7565 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were recreated deleted pages. He is just some kid making stuff up and vandalizing Wikipedia. --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professsional wrestling

My edit was not vandalism. You obviously didn't read it.

I am re-instating my edit. If you revert it again, I will bring in a third party.

TravelingCat (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was set by consensus, and changing it is considered vandalism, do not change the revert. 
--DanteAgusta (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set by whose consensus? Where? I see nothing on that article's page about not changing it. In fact, I don't think any article on this site is under that policy. If no further changes could possibly be made, then it needs to be locked.

I authored at least 60% of the current article. The fact that that text is largely untouched means that the consensus seems to be that my edits are valid. I think I have every right to make ongoing revisions. You don't get to tell me I don't.

Furthermore, I think that the absence of the section on kayfabe means the article is incomplete. If you insist on blocking my efforts, I will be taking this up with another editor who is not involved in the pro wrestling project.TravelingCat (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changing major parts of the article to POV. And adding un-sourced material. These sort of changes have been frowned reverted
many times before. --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frowned reverted? Point of view? You need to explain this, because there is nothing that I added that isn't neutral wording. In fact, it was text taken from a previous edit. It sat there for months unchanged. I don't think you know what 'your' talking about.TravelingCat (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change it, then you should get a consensus, otherwise, leave it be. I see nothing wrong with the article and I see
nothing helpful with your edit. If you have a problem with that then oh well.
 --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU don't own the article. I do have a problem with your insolence.TravelingCat (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the article either. But your tone makes it sound like you do. I am going by the rules set down by Wikipedia.
If you don't like them, then take it up with Wikipedia. Otherwise, if you want to make a major change like this, please get
consensus as the things you are changing have been approved by the Wrestling Project team. Thank you. 
--DanteAgusta (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement regarding my contributions was intended as a refutation of your inference that I am a random vandal. You initiated that with your original reversion, insinuating my good-faith edit was vandalism. I hope you can see where I would take offense at that.

I am merely trying to restore a large block of text that was accidentally deleted a long time ago. Looking at your past history, you seem to be offended by the notion that wrestling is not pure sport. Is that not POV? Everyone knows wrestling is scripted; the existence of kayfabe is widely documented.TravelingCat (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for the vandal comment, since your were adding information that has been added many times before I made the
assumption and that is my fault. But I have reverted edits that are considered to be against general consensus. If you have
"documented" sources that say wrestling is  "scripted" then please show it to the Wrestling Project and they may agree. 
Otherwise I am simply doing what I feel is correct. Thank You. 
--DanteAgusta (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you. I just thought that article was in much need of change. What I didn't like about the article was how it perceived PWI as the definitive authority in world title recognition. Whatever PWI recognizes is listed in the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article and that's where it should stay.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion

Why did you remove Not to be confused with competitive traditional wrestling by professionals.?--Patrick (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is typing in Pro Wrestling for amateur wrestling. Your edit was unnecessary. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur wrestling has nothing to do with this. The point is that "professional wrestling" seems to have a meaning different from the literary one, or according to Wrestling#Professional_wrestling, two meanings. That requires clarification.--Patrick (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confused. Pro Wrestling means one thing, as that article states. Pro Wrestling is what everyone thinks it is, there is not conflict
to explain. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow my link? It says: The term "professional wrestling" can refer to sport wrestlers/traditional wrestlers who work as professionals, or "sports entertainment", where matches are commonly 'worked' to an arranged outcome, as a result of staged combat.--Patrick (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, is there are no amateur wrestlers working as professionals and there are no pro leagues. Pro Wrestling means one thing.
So there is no need to your explanation. No one will be confused. And as a matter of fact, that wrestling article should be changed to correspond
with the facts. --DanteAgusta (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously contradictions between articles are confusing. I changed that text.--Patrick (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent circuit

I apologize if you somehow misconstrued my posts on your talk page regarding the short forms of "Indy" & "Indie", as harassment? Could you though, provide a reason why you are continuously removing my reference of the two alternate spellings? Thank you. 72.39.157.210 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The is no need for it. Nuff said. --DanteAgusta (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So since you are removing my edits based entirely on your personal opinion, I believe I will reinstate my edit, I can if required cite various mainstream media articles that use the term “indie”. So unless you have a reason other than POV and can cite sources that say the term spelling “indie” is incorrect please leave them unchanged. 72.39.157.210 (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reinstatement will be considered vandalism. --DanteAgusta (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is including the information on an alternative widely used spelling vandalism? I would consider your removal of this additional information vandalism. 72.39.157.210 (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would ask please state reasons for your edit other than POV? 72.39.157.210 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not widely used. The proper term is Indy. This page is set by the editors of the wrestling community, changing it is vandalism. Final warning
anything else on this and I will report you for both vandalism and harassment. --DanteAgusta (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added constructive information, the term is widely used by the mainstream media, and is considered interchangeable in the "wrestling media" if you want to change it, please either cite sources to the contrary or get a consensus or I will report the edits as vandalism. 72.39.157.210 (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. Consensus is made. Indy is the word. This has been debated and finalized. Do not add you edit again. 
The "wrestling media" is not considered a reliable source. So the word Indy was chosen. --DanteAgusta (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again can you please cite a source or link for when or who made this consensus? 72.39.157.210 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was made in the Wrestling Project discussion pages. The word Indy was chosen as the proper noun specifically for independent 
wrestling. By adding your edit you go against the consensus of the Wrestling Project.--DanteAgusta (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROH title

Damn it you beat me to it. I was planning on doing that when the show on HDnet premiered. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. If I had not been reading about the show a bit before I would not have thought of it. --DanteAgusta (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling)

Well when I made an edit to the page, you reverted me. Twice I asked why, but you reverted me without explanation. In order to avoid an edit war, and the possibility of you being blocked due to the three-revert rule, could you explain why my edit is wrong? Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point to the change. TNA and ROH are both about the same age, but the ROH title is older and more established. So it was decided that ROH
would be over TNA is this area. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I also have to ask for reason to this revert [1] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would reply here.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah come on, the CWA title was the only World title in Europe that ever made a name here in the US. Several top wrestlers held the title and thye had  
a working relationship with the AWA during the 80's. Ya can't delete it just cause of no RS. You have to delete half of the wrestling pages for that. 
--DanteAgusta (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What would you say then about the XPW title? [2]^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XPW was around for what, a cup of coffee? CWA was in existence for 30 years, XPW was together for 3? --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant. I was pointing out the fact that the XPW site does not refer to its championships as world titles and I cannot find any sources directly from XPW that refers to the titles as such either. Should that be reflected in the article? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I ever saw that called the XPW a World title was their belt. I do not know if it was ever defended outside the US, or outside a couple
of states for that matters. --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Found one. [3] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WWA

To my knowledge it was real. It wasn't just a TNA storyline. If it was a hoax, it was quite elaborate, since there are several sources pointing to the realness of the promotion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IWGP Tag

NJWP sanctioned or not, the title changed hands on tv tonight and that is noteworthy. And if NJPW did not give TNA permission for Team 3D to drop the title, then for the pasted 10 days they've had a chance to change history. Though at the very least, we must note that 3D lost the belt in the notes section.--WillC 03:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of the title change on TNA may be ok. But declaring The British Invasion champions is incorrect. At this time, it seems that NJPW and TNA  
are not on the same page, and their relationship may be breaking down. A note saying the title switched is appropriate, but not that their are new
champs.--DanteAgusta (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is debatable. The change did happen and we can't do nothing about that. The recognition of New Japan is not needed. As long as a source is there for it, then it should be included. For now we can just do a note, but eventually it would be better to include it into the history list with a note saying only TNA recognizes this reign while it was contested for in the promotion and that New Japan does not.--WillC 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same problem as when Lesnar took the IWGP title and "lost" it to Angle. The title never changed hands according to NJ. It is their title, 
they make the decision over if the title has changed hands. Until NJ says there was a title change, then Team 3D are still champions. And at this 
point there have been no mention of a title change, or even a title match anywhere in Japanese media. It is only a footnote unless NJ says it is 
legit--DanteAgusta (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is wrong. We are an encyclopedia. We go by facts. We are unbiased and held by no one, or nothing but the facts that are presented. New Japan can say a monkey shit the belt one day and that is how it is created but if there is no reliable third party site to say that is actually how it happened, then it is not included. It is noted that is how New Japan says it happened, but we do not say that is the title's true creation. TNA recognizes it, NJPW does not at the moment and neither opinion matters. In about three hours there will be around 5 reliable third party references to say the title change happened and that are the facts. New Japan can say it never happened, but it doesn't matter. TNA does not own it, New Japan does, but we aren't held by New Japan nor TNA. We have to note the change, that is one of the many guidelines on here. No major details left out. When it comes time the reign should be included with the explanation that New Japan does not recognize this reign nor did they sanction the title change.--WillC 04:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a foot note next in Team 3D's box is ok. But until it becomes official, there is no title change. It does not matter what happened on tv.
--DanteAgusta (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is official as soon as a third party source becomes avaliable. Facts are facts no matter what a promotion says. The title change was shown world-wide, it is an important part of this situation. I don't plan to add it until I'm finished expanding the IWGP Tag Title anyway in a subpage.--WillC 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fact. What is a fact is a match happened in which the titles may have changed hands. But until NJ makes it official. The the FACT is
Team 3D are still the champs. It is that simple. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were defeated plain as day. Those are facts, the results come out saying The Brits defeated 3D for the belts.--WillC 07:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They defeated Team 3D, but we do not know if the belts were on the line. Until NJ says so. And still at this point, NJ has made no mention of the 
titles changing hands or even being defended. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said many times before. New Japan does not have to say anything. The match was announced as being for the IWGP Titles with Team 3D being declared the losers of the contest.--WillC 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, New Japan has to sanction the match. They own the titles. If their call to make, not TNA's. Until New Japan declares new champions. Then Team 3D
is still the champions. And as of 6:30pm central time July 31, 2009, there has been no news from New Japan about a title match or change. That mean
no new champs. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I need a source that New Japan owns them. If they own them, then that must mean they copyright them. And there must be proof they have filed for the copyright laws. Bring this. Also, this is wikipedia for the one hundredth time. We base everything on facts, so I also need proof they have not sanctioned the match. Just because they have yet to update does not mean they have not sanctioned the title change. There is proof that Team 3D were defeated for the titles. Again, neither TNA nor New Japan have to recognize the reign. If there are sources for the reign, then it is added, that simple.--WillC 00:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this statement at all, and doubt many other would. But this conversation is mute as an update explaining the events has been made.
And if you dont think New Japan owns the IWGP, your out of your mind. --DanteAgusta (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe they own them, but my opinion on if they do or not is irrelevant. A source is needed if that is your argument. You must present proof on matters. Most probably would not, but that is irrelevent.--WillC 01:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion paramteter is meant for the promotion it is contested for in. It is currently contested for in TNA and New Japan, not just New Japan.--WillC 02:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to want your reverts. You have undid multiple edits in the pasted 24 hours, so you have violated the 3RR on the IWGP Tag.--WillC 02:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Japan has not recognize any of the title defenses in TNA, so your point is mute. I suggest we both stop reverting each others stuff and let a 
third party arbitrate. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be aware of the agreement, the reason 3D won the belts was apart of New Japan's and TNA's partership. 3D won them to help promote New Japan more in the US. The same was for the Machineguns. It set up the feud beween them and No Limit over them. So all the defenses were allowed by New Japan. I agree. I just want everything to be correct like you, we just have differences in opinions.--WillC 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I suggest we stop this conversation as I am getting aggravated, and do not want to go that way. The current page seems fine, and I suggest  
we wait for a bit to see if NJPW says anything. It has only been one day so maybe something will be said soon.
--DanteAgusta (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]