User talk:Andrewnageh123

Welcome!

Hi Andrewnageh123! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Brock Lesnar.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Brock Lesnar.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Brock Lesnar.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Brock Lesnar.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.mykhel.com/wwe/update-on-brock-lesnar-current-status-the-wwe-089931.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, I'm LJF2019. I noticed that in this edit to Brock Lesnar, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. LJF2019 ^talk 11:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an unnecessary information since the charges wasdropped,i will publish the explanation to the edit now Andrewnageh123 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an unnecessary information since the charges were dropped,i will publish the explanation to the edit now Andrewnageh123 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Brock Lesnar. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LJF2019 ^talk 11:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LJF2019. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Brock Lesnar. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. LJF2019 ^talk 11:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The correct grammar is ‘on may 28’ not ‘in may 28’ secondly i put an explanation and you didn’t give me a valid argument to my edit,I don’t know if you know who brock lesnar is,your responses to me look like it’s a bot not a person,can you give me an explanation why did you even edit the correct grammar? I have always made edits on wikipedia without someone do this before. Andrewnageh123 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to me? Andrewnageh123 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hi Andrewnageh123, in response to your question, I have a rule of thumb I go through when changing the picture of people on Wikipedia: I generally change the lead photo if I can find one that is of equal or higher quality than the current one, and was taken more recently than the current lead image. The only picture taken more recently of Brock Lesnar that kinda shoes his face well is File:Reigns_vs_Lesnar_WM34_crop.jpg but this photo would be super grainy if I were to zoom it in, making it worse quality than the current picture. Sometimes I like to search for creative commons videos on youtube and take images from those videos, but you have to be 1000% certain that the video is actually fair use and not some guy uploading someone else's/a company's work under creative commons. If you can find a fair use image that is of high quality and more recent than the current lead image, then I see so problem with replacing it, but as of now there is no image worthy. Thanks for the question and I hope I answered it for you. --Righanred (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of youtube videos that i can take images from? If it isn’t from the WWE youtube channel or just a random video from a fan,so what kind of videos that i can take screenshots from? Because i can find a lot of high quality images if you want,i’m just new to Wikipedia and still don’t understand the copyrights part yet,it’s also hard to take a permission for an old photo or any photos in general.

Andrewnageh123 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos have to have a Creative Commons listence. You can find out if a video has a creative commons lictense by searching for this notice at the end of youtube video discriptions: https://gyazo.com/bcc98115e6e4a7c43f4341ac7d6d030b . Best of luck.--Righanred (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA

Hi. In the infobox, you'll see a source titled 'mixed martial arts record'. That is the info used. This is not controversial. If you think the source doesn't say what is written, please discuss. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says in WP:MMA.

'In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog.' NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jon Jones have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure we would have to go to this discussion again,almost 99.99% of outlets and sources called it a TKO win for Jones after the fight,like other guys mentioned in the conor mcgregor discussion that sherdog isn’t the only source,in what world was that a KO? Bigfoot sipva vs mark hunt was overturned to a no contest for bigfoot silva because he tested positive and it’s a draw on sherdog,should we change to a draw on wikipedia because sherdog said so? That was a tko (ground and pound),the other fighter (gustafsson) literally got up in less than 3 seconds after the referee stopped it to congratulate jones Andrewnageh123 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, I'm Squared.Circle.Boxing. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Darren Till, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – ².O.^Boxing 08:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it weird that upu won’t put his age on his page at all,everyone on Wikipedia or at least mma fighters have their date of birth Andrewnageh123 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hi Andrewnageh123! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Vince McMahon several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Vince McMahon, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. LM2000 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your edit warring on Vince McMahon. Some of your edits have been motivated by your personal disagreement with the statements, others have had questionable or invalid reasoning. Please discuss further edits on the talk page before reverting again. — Czello 09:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should i start a talk page on your profile,vince mcmahon’a profile or should we talk here? I was literally the only one who gave reasons on my edits,you didn’t at all,you are the one who shouldn’t revert it back? Jim Cornette didn’t say that and for all things,he is already quoted once like every other wrestling personality Also I don’t actually like vince mcmahon,i listen to jim cornette and i know what his point of views are Also some of those quotes are questionable to be put in the legacy of vince mcmahon when you put quotes from a guy like Bryan Alvarez of all people in this Andrewnageh123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should take place at Talk:Vince McMahon. We did, indeed, give reasons for our reversions in our edit summaries. Per WP:BRD now discussion should continue on the talk page until a consensus is reached. — Czello 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s talk here on my page,i don’t mind it,you didn’t give any reason,it’s the other guy,you didn’t debate my reasons

Also there should be big names in the world of wrestling who worked in WWE or Vince Mcmahon not some guy with a podcast who isn’t even a journalist like Bryan Alvarez,we can’t put any irrelevant people’s opinions who has wrestling podcasts here,literally everyone included is a wrestler

or a quote out of context from jim cornette Andrewnageh123 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alvarez is a pro wrestling journalist, the editor and publisher of Figure Four, he has published books like The Death of WCW. He is not a no-body with a podcast, he is an expert in the pro wrestling subject. As Czello said, it's more a WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem.

If you insist on discussing here, then not only will I agree with what HHH said above, but I'll reiterate what I said in edit summaries. Cornette isn't giving his own opinion on McMahon, he's saying why others dislike him. That isn't over-ridden by Cornette's own views later on. On the subject of Alvarez: HHH is right in that he is one of the most pre-eminent journalists in pro wrestling. This makes him an independent source. Wikipedia prefers independent sources rather than just those close to McMahon as they're going to be more objective. — Czello 08:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I just want to expand Czello's comments a little bit. While Alvarez is a reliable journalist in his own right, we're not even using him as a primary source. He was quoted in an article from MarketWatch regarding the state of WWE and Vince McMahon in 2022, and that's the source we're using as a reference. You also removed a source from Variety which makes similar claims for some reason, even though Alvarez isn't involved in that one at all.LM2000 (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is literally known to be biased towards the WWE and it isn’t even arguable,he posted so many fake news over the years and he was the reason about the last rumor of ‘monster news’ that WWE was gor sold to Saudi Arabia that caused a lot of chaos in the public also more importantly he is the only personality quoted here that hasn’t worked in any big wrestling company especially wwe or vince

WWE has literally sold almost 500K tickets just for https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/wwe_1994_2012_attendance In 2023 and 2023,WWE had the highest gate in Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania History and it doesn’t have to do with inflation,WWE is doing Royal Rumble in Stadiums now,that’s something they couldn’t do in any period of their history Even Wrestlemania was being held in Arenas instead of stadiums in the mid 90’s and early 90’s because the business and demand was worse then,Monday Night Raw in 94,95,96,97 was held in high school gyms or they were taping multimple episodes in advance and attendance was way worse then House shows attendance numbers in 95,96,97 were worse Even i told

As far as wrestling being less popular than ever,this is proven to be false and that’s a fact The Variety Article was a hit piece by also a reporter is an aew fan who has previous articles about Tony Khan if you searched his history and people went off on him on Twitter during the time he posted that article Andrewnageh123 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you did the math of WWE total attendance for WWE ppv events,it’s 450K attendance,more than any year in their history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_and_WWE_Network_events Andrewnageh123 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022 alone Andrewnageh123 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WWE is for sale and worth 8B$ now,billions of dollars industry,worth than any time in history and too many companies are interested in buying it,they aren’t even stupid to buy something with that amount of money for a thing less popular than ever They also have more followers on social media than ever WWE is a public companu and in 2022,they had more people buy tickets than anytime in the mid 90’s and early 2000’s Dave Meltzer who is more expert on the busines side than bryan alvarez,even Bryan wouldn’t argue with him was asked on Twitter if attendance and popularity now is worse than ever and that was his response: https://twitter.com/davemeltzerwon/status/1581416748691034113?s=46&t=UFlcf8F90uehzjyo-h0UEA ‘Not even close. Mid 90s and mid 00s were far worse.’ Even people in the replies agree That wasn’t even the first time,he many times argued that the attendance and popularity now is better than that period Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t care what anyone said in an article because literally anyone can write an article nowadays,if he is just making statement without providing facts then it doesn’t matter,Dave Meltzee argues otherwise Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe you said someone like Bryan Alvarez would be more objective not even using the word subjective,this is embarrassing,have you listened to this guy talk? Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally can’t have any argument that WWE in 1994,1995,1996 was more popular than 2022,you literally can’t in any metrics,WWE’s state was pathetic back then in every metric Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of issues with what you've said, and most of it comes down to WP:OR. On the subject of Alvarez, he is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If you don't agree you'd need to get consensus to overturn this. No, he was not the cause of the Saudi deal rumours; that originated elsewhere on Twitter and he briefly discussed it on his podcast.

Everything else you've said is pretty much invalidated by the fact you're interpreting that stadium shows = greater popularity. It's obviously not the case; weekly viewership speaks for itself and is nothing like it was in 1998-2001. The idea that the Variety article is invalid because the author is supposedly an AEW fan is... not how Wikipedia works. Please see WP:RS. — Czello 16:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell cares if ‘he is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.‘ are you telling me right now that everything comes out of this guys mouth is a bible? That freaking guy of all people? He gets blasted all the time on Twitter for his false reports,he is the one who put on a tweet:’There will be monster news coming today’ https://twitter.com/bryanalvarez/status/1612992062198280195?s=46&t=UFlcf8F90uehzjyo-h0UEA and then other reporters in group chat had to post those news that proven to be fake and he had to defend himself

https://youtube.com/M79i6jTGsAk watch this video:he literally started saying I shouldn’t have gone on the internet

Dave Meltzer is also a reliable source and he literally went on and on many times that wrestling now is more popular than a lot of periods in history especially mid 90’s The statement says:’Wrestling is less popular than ever’ not wrestling is less popular than 1998-2001 That should be edited and i will edit it using at least 10 Dave Meltzer sources and quotes that you can’t argue with Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also it isn’t just ppv attendace,Total attendance which is basically people buying tickets to see live events is higher in 2022 than 1994,1995,1996,1997 WWE will have 1.7M total attendance this year according to their public statements,those years i mentioned were less https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/wwe_1994_2012_attendance Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendance is also higher than most of the years Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell cares if ‘he is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.‘ Wikipedia does, clearly. Again if you want to try to have him removed as a reliable source you can petition it at WP:PW, but given that he's one of the most respected journalists in wrestling, probably second to Meltzer, you're not likely to have much luck.

Attendance at shows doesn't equal popularity. It's not an objective metric. Do you have any actual sources that definitively say that wrestling is now more popular than ever before? Remember, trying to derive a conclusion from show attendance is WP:OR. — Czello 18:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shows?

Since Dave Meltzer is a more reliable source,i will actually use some of his quotes in his articles to dismiss that wrestling now is less popular than ever because he actually argued with a lot of people during that time about this topic and said it was false,he knows the business more than bryan

By the way those articles and statememts also happened in the pandemic,empty arenas shows were happening and the state of wrestling was actually depressing

Business has picked up and we are in 2023 now,business has ups and downs,WWE will literally have between 150K-200K in attendance from the royal rumble and wretlemania,how is this less popular than ever? Insanity Anyway i will use meltzer quotes which are many about this statement Andrewnageh123 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources where Meltzer has said WWE is more popular than it's ever been? — Czello 19:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has so many quotes dismissing the statement:wrestling is less popular than ever by saying wresting was actially less popular in 1995 and 1996

I’m not arguing with you that wrestling now is actually ‘more popular than ever’ All what i’m saying that there were so many years in the past when the wrestling business was much worse,If you were actually a WWF fan during 1993 to 1996 after the steroids trial,you wouldn’t have argued with me,it wrecked the business badly,WWF Monday Night RAW used to be taped in high school gyms,house shows were in high school gyms in 95 and 96,they were doing pathetic numbers And if you watched wrestling during that time,you would notice that WWE in 2005 for example sold less 3500 tickets for one of their ppvs (Taboo Tuesday) even AEW sells more than that,WWE in 2005 sold less than 5000 tickets for a ppv in Cleveland which is a big wrestling city

Anyway this is one of Dave’s tweets about wrestling popularity https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerwon/status/1581416748691034113?s=46&t=UFlcf8F90uehzjyo-h0UEA

Andrewnageh123 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The context of that link is difficult to discern owing to the original tweet being delete. To be clear, what edit are you trying to justify here? Is it this one? If so, we could reword the "less popular" part, but otherwise the decline in ratings is undeniable. — Czello 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the Bryan Alvarez statement for a start Also I don’t understand,how os someone writing an article on Variety about WWE like they also do for entertainment and other sports has anything to do with the legacy of vince mcmahon? Who talked about his legacy here? Andrewnageh123 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, as explained Alvarez is accepted as an expert in the industry; we won't remove his statement because of a personal dislike of him. I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the Variety article, either. The decline of ratings isn't even up for debate - why would we discount Variety's view on the matter? Per WP:RSP they're a reliable source. — Czello 08:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just said how an article about WWE’s business in 2020 during the pandemic from Variety have anything to do with vince mcmahon’s entire legacy? As far as Bryan Alvarez,i will use some of meltzer quotes to dismiss that false point Thank you Andrewnageh123 (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to produce links to these supposed Meltzer quotes, but you've yet to provide any. I'm happy to peruse them once you link them. Your comment on Variety doesn't really make sense, either; they clearly are stating that Vince should be held accountable for WWE's failures. You might not personally agree, but that's again a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Czello 10:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We include quotes from various people that credit McMahon for WWF's successes during HulkaMania and the Attitude Era and the role that this plays in his legacy. It only makes sense that we include commentary about the downswing in popularity that the business has taken since the InVasion storyline. Actual policies like WP:DUE encourage this. Most of his legacy section is still largely positive, even though it's hard to find complimentary coverage of him these days.

MarketWatch/Alvarez and Variety are strong sources discussing relevant issues and I still haven't seen a good argument for removal. Even if Alvarez wasn't a reliable source in his own right (he is), he is being quoted in an article from another reliable source about McMahon's role in the company shortly before the WSJ reports last year. It's a notable opinion about his legacy at that moment in time, not so different from Dick Ebersole being quoted about McMahon's partnership and success decades earlier.LM2000 (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is from meltzer saying wrestling now is more popular than it was in 1992-1996,he actually said far more https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1547389928853880832 Andrewnageh123 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should end the discussion about this point Andrewnageh123 (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At best, Meltzer and Alvarez disagree. Realistically, they're using different metrics. AEW earning more last year than the major companies did in the 90s doesn't negate the fact that WWE ratings have been in constant decline for 20 years and are recording record lows. No reason has been provided for the removal of the Variety article that explains this.LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Alvarez literally will tell you Dave knows about the business side more than him,it’s even laughable to have that conversation I also had a talk with Czello who literally told me if meltzer dismisses it that then i will change it,he wasn’t talking about aew tickets,he said wrestling is far more popularnthan it was in 1992-1996 and literally always said it More of it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1339022579055566848 https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1547389928853880832

https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1356030483121930245 https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1547329918752530432 https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1404705667550650369 https://mobile.twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1294872493333729281 He literally argued all those points with people all the time,same with UFC,it’s undeniable they are more popular than ever but they haven’t done any viewers close to the ones in 2011 and 2012 Andrewnageh123 (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just added an opinion,millions and millions of fans like the storylines and diminished rosteris literally an opinion not a fact,wwe has the biggest stars and they brought back everyone now too,so this isn’t a fact and not real thing and since you talk about viewership,wwe just had the most views ever for wrestlemania,summerslam,survivor series,saudi shows,extreme rules,royal rumble,elimination chamber in 2022

https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/wrestlemania-38-was-most-viewed-event-company-history-second-most-viewed-event-peacock?amp

https://www.ringsidenews.com/2021/08/24/summerslam-was-most-viewed-wwe-pay-per-view-of-all-time/ https://superluchas.com/en/amp/extreme-rules-2022-fue-la-edicion-de-este-ppv-mas-vista-de-la-historia/ My answer in the edit got cut short Andrewnageh123 (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://sportzwiki.com/wwe/crown-jewel-2022-becomes-most-viewed-wwe-ple/amp/ Andrewnageh123 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally don’t know what you are doing here in wrestling pages if you think wrestling is less popular than ever,wwe just had the highest geowing event in detroit history for smackdown on Friday,Cincinnati last monday and i bet they broke some records last night for RAW 30,if you even watched WWF in 199,they would never sell almost 11K tickets on friday and 17K tickets like they did yesterday,they were in trouble during that time because of the steroids trials which You prove a lot of ignorance in the wrestling business because you haven’t argued about any of my points It’s literally well know that when Diesel was the champ in 1995 and shawn michaels in 1996,they were the lowest drawing champs of all time,you just need to watch the show,it isn’t just the profits,people didn’t care back then and they were less fans,bad in every metrics Andrewnageh123 (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bodyslam.net/2022/06/07/hell-in-a-cell-2022-was-the-most-watched-hell-in-a-cell-event/ Andrewnageh123 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're deriving conclusions from individual event ticket sales, which is WP:OR. However, I've reworded the sentence from "less popular than ever" to "declining popularity". It's accurate, it's in line with Alvarez's meaning, and it should serve as a compromise. However, if you disagree further with this please discuss it at Talk:Vince McMahon. Do not continue to edit war and delete sourced material. You've been reverted by several editors and your edits are clearly contested. If you continue to revert, I'll have to report this to WP:ANI. From now on follow the WP:BRD process and discuss matters on the talk page. — Czello 08:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So i wrote all of this and this was your response to me? You didn’t say anything and i put reliable sources about all those topics,you didn’t prove that wrestling during 1995 and 1996 was more popular than now,also do i have to explain cable decline and tv consuming? WWE has a bigger fanbase and following than ever,they post so many clips that if you counted all the big 5 social media platforms,some segments get 50M views,cable 10 years ago had 120M subsribers,now it is 70M subsribers also it’s a fact that WWE is more global now and more popular in other countries like india,50M people watched Wrestlemania in 2022 and it was the most viewed wrestlemania of all time in the united states too not just india,same with the other events,they were the most watched ever,if you can prove the claim that wrestling in 1992-1996 is more popular than 2022 and 2023 then you can’t change that,you can’t warn anything,i posted all the arguments with sources and links and you just respond with 2 sentences,the argument is false,wrestling was less popular in 1995,WWE literally has over 400M followers on social media alone,views and engents are for sure higher than it was them and i will repeat: shows,extreme rules,royal rumble,elimination chamber in 2022 https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/wrestlemania-38-was-most-viewed-event-company-history-second-most-viewed-event-peacock?amp

https://www.ringsidenews.com/2021/08/24/summerslam-was-most-viewed-wwe-pay-per-view-of-all-time/ https://superluchas.com/en/amp/extreme-rules-2022-fue-la-edicion-de-este-ppv-mas-vista-de-la-historia Andrewnageh123 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://superluchas.com/en/amp/extreme-rules-2022-fue-la-edicion-de-este-ppv-mas-vista-de-la-historia/ Andrewnageh123 (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://sportzwiki.com/wwe/crown-jewel-2022-becomes-most-viewed-wwe-ple/amp/ Andrewnageh123 (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the meltzsr tweets and sources like you asked Andrewnageh123 (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool i took out the new part that was added from the market watch article a couple of hours ago,are we good now? Andrewnageh123 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also you know why i said the Variety article was biased? Because it was the same guy who wrote this article which is so silly now and you can see through it https://variety.com/vip/vince-mcmahon-is-finally-getting-what-he-hasnt-seen-in-20-years-competition-1235083103/ VINCE MCMAHON IS FINALLY GETTING WHAT HE HASN’T SEEN IN 20 YEARS: COMPETITION

His name is Gaving Bridge and he actually knows Tony Khan and was called on it on social media

Andrewnageh123 (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first paragraph is, again, almost entirely WP:OR. We don't determine popularity ourselves as editors, we go off what sources say. I never said that the early-to-mid 90s were more popular than now, but we've reworded that sentence anyway. As for Variety - aside from the fact that he's right (about Vince finally getting competition), it's irrelevant if he knows Tony Khan. Again, please stop deleting sourced material without consensus on the talk page. I'll remind you that if this happens again I'll need to raise a report at WP:ANI — Czello 09:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, it's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You dont like Alvarez and try to remove his opinions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‘WWE recorded record annual profits into the 2020s, which MarketWatch reported had come at the cost of "A diminished roster and less-than-inspiring story lines"; by 2022,’

This sentence literally wasn’t even there 12 hours ago

I can literally get any opinions from any of those jounralists You can argue declining ratings as a fact trajectory (numbers decline or incresase all the time) How can you argue that A diminished roster and less-than-inspiring story line is true? Never mind that this is an opinion,this changes all the time WWE literally has the best storyline in years according to many fans (The Bloodline) but anyway i will say it again,this wasn’t even there 12 hours ago and A diminished roster and less-than-inspiring story line is something that can change in a month

Andrewnageh123 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that sentence not being there previously matter? Articles change, people add new things. Wikipedia editors don't make their own conclusions, we rely on the conclusions of reliable sources. Anything else is irrelevant. — Czello 14:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always only repond to a sentence of my entire comment? Why do you always do that? This horrendous and Anyone who sees this whole page can see that you have zero arguments I mentioned that in addition to: You can argue declining ratings as a fact trajectory (numbers decline or incresase all the time) but as far storylines and rosters,that changes all the time,How can you argue that A diminishing roster and less-than-inspiring story line is true? Never mind that this is an opinion,this changes all the time,WWE brought back 30 wrestlers since April 2022 when the article was written,we are almost February 2023,WWE literally has the best storyline in years according to many fans (The Bloodline) but anyway i will say it again,this wasn’t even there 12 hours ago and A diminished roster and less-than-inspiring story line is something that can change in months,look at aew’s roster from September 2021 compared to September 2020 for example,huge difference

That article was written in April 2022

Andrewnageh123 (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained before, what you're doing is engaging in WP:OR. I'm not going to response to each instance of you doing this. You still seem to be trying to make changes to the article based on your own opinions of whether or not the sources are correct. That isn't how we operate on Wikipedia - please see WP:V which explains why we do it this way. — Czello 14:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wrote an article in 2022 that wwe has a diminishing roster and decling storyline,are we gonna keep it on here forever? And i will repeat it again,you can put that above in vince mcmahon’s career sections above,those are articles about the state of the business in 2022 I will repeat it again April 2022 April 2022 We are not gonna keep it in 2023,2024,2025

The section is about Vince Mcmahon’a legacy,you should put people who were answering this specific topic Jim Cornette’a video was specifically on Vince Mcmahon’s legacy This is the section of Vince Mcmahon’s legacy Do you even follow Marketwatch or know what marketwatch is if you follow stock? They put a new article about WWE every freaking month,they just put article about the growth in viewership and ratings in November,they had their best numbers since March 2020 etc..

Andrewnageh123 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the phrasing is "into the 2020s", it still remains relevant. Yes, this being part of his legacy is important - noting that WWE's profits is an achievement McMahon made alongside his failures matters. Yes, the storylines are still diminished even if some fans liked the Bloodline stuff, because that's what sources say. Yes, the roster is still diminished compared to how it was a few years ago. — Czello 14:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Andrewnageh123 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which source specifically are you saying falls into this? — Czello 14:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your opinion bro Andrewnageh123 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for anything that happened on my side and i promise it won’t happen again I have a lot to add to wikipedia So i hope i get unblocked,i have been punished for almost 2 months now Andrewnageh123 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can i participate? All the admin needs is to read the entire discussion on my Talk page:January 2023 so they can see the hard work and hours that i put in discussing those topics in details,meanwhile you just effortlessly respond with a small sentence and show small knowledge in the wrestling business,those are false allegations and assumptions I didn’t make conclusions,i put sources and links to prove why are some of those points are either outdated or just opinions that should be dismissed,i brought more reliable sources about WWE’s viewership/popularity and i can bring hundreads more and since we are on that topic

According to the internal live events report, last night's WWE Raw 30 generated the largest domestic gate in the history of Monday Night Raw. https://twitter.com/seanrosssapp/status/1617894652778274817?s=46&t=0jlfigErA29bUqx5HGxshQ https://twitter.com/wwe/status/1617898291693510659?s=46&t=0jlfigErA29bUqx5HGxshQ

This keeps looking worse for you Andrewnageh123 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the internal live events report, last night's WWE Raw 30 generated the largest domestic gate in the history of Monday Night Raw. This, once again, shows you're not understanding how WP:OR works. Please read that article before editing further; most of your deletions are violating this policy. — Czello 15:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so sorry for anything wrong that happened and i promise it won’t happen again,i would like to be unblocked,i love wikipedia with all my heart,i learned my lesson Andrewnageh123 (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t do anything wrong and i added so many contributions and gave sources Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewnageh123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I didn’t anything wrong to get blocked,i love Wikipedia and i added so many contributions,there was a discussion going on about sepcific topic on my page that you can look into,you can see that I wasn’t in the wrong here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewnageh123 (talk • contribs) 11:21, January 24, 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewnageh123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, admins reviewing blocks expect that the editor who is making the appeal will provide request that confirms to the guide to appealing blocks. "Look around and guess why I should be unblocked" is not a valid appeal. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I apologize for anything that happened on my side and i promise it won’t happen again I have a lot to add to wikipedia So i hope i get unblocked,i have been punished for almost 2 months now

I apologize for anything that happened on my side and i promise it won’t happen again I have a lot to add to wikipedia So i hope i get unblocked,i have been punished for almost 2 months now Andrewnageh123 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewnageh123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i apologize so much for anything wrong that happened and i would like to come back to Wikipedia,there are so many interests and big events coming up in the next few week,i know i can add so much to this giant encyclopedia,i’m looking to add and i love wikipedia so much and i promise it won’t happen again. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 24 January Andrewnageh123 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your apology is appreciated, but this request does not specifically address the reasons for the block("disruptive editing, persistent addition of unsourced material, argumentative to an extreme, inability to collaborate with other editors"). Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and we must be convinced that disruption will not resume in order to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It was inability to collaborate with another editor,we disagreed on certain things about a specific page but this is in the past now,that was 3 months ago and it’s over

And i promise you it won’t happen again

unblock|reason=apology

I’m so sorry for anything wrong that happened an i promise it won’t happen again,i would like to be unblocked,i love wikipedia with all my hearr Andrewnageh123 (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry for anything wrong that happened and i promise it won’t happen again,i would like to be unblocked,i love wikipedia with all my heart Andrewnageh123 (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was inability to collaborate with another editor,we disagreed on certain things about a specific page but this is in the past now,that was 3 months ago and it’s over

unblock|reason=apology

I would like to get unblocked and i promise it won’t happen again,i love to contribute Andrewnageh123 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|reason=i want a second chance

I have been blocked for 3 months,i would like to apologize for my mistakes and i would like to get unblocked,i want a second chance Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unblock | reason=your reason here Andrewnageh123 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewnageh123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for 3 months,i apologize for my mistakes and i would like to get unblocked,i want a second chance and i love wikipedia Andrewnageh123 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to explain what you did wrong and how you will avoid doing it again. If you continue to file these requests and just say sorry but do not address these concerns, you will lose your access to this page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Putting unblock requests inside of "==" headers doesn't render right. I have removed that formatting for you, and wrapped this comment in an unblock request for you. SQL ^{Query Me!} 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]