Jump to content

Talk:List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Petey Williams

Because I'm getting annoyed with the one versus all editing going on, I'd like an official word from someone relating to the dubious removal/edit war going on over Petey. Because somehow repeatedly appearing for a company for 3 years now means you *aren't* working for the company you signed for now? SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn how Wikipedia works. This is the situation: we need a genuine source that he is a full-time member of the company. I'm afraid the only information people are able to provide so far is an old ImpactWrestling.com link and the fact that he showed up at recent tapings. As stated at the top of the chart (not my words) "a reliable source is either ImpactWrestling.com, Wrestling Observer.com, Slam Sports, WrestleView, or PWTorch.com." Therefore, citation needed is perfectly reasonable until concrete evidence that he is a contracted full-time member of the roster. Because so far, he just seems to be a glorified guest. We need a reliable source that he is an actual roster member, anything else is speculation, and speculation is not how Wikipedia works. icaldonta (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Someone doesn't get it and it's not me. You keep removing him and the sources indicating he's working for the company without providing any proof he left to start with. SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved, references/inline citations have been added to his entry on the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to comment that using an archived copy of a dead/expired url reference is acceptable as a reliable source to verify content. WP:DEADREF recommends that editor's do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Check the internet archive and if you can't find it there, then attempt to find a replacement source, and another alternative is to tag it as a dead link, so link rot bots or editor's can properly find and fix it. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Rascalz' Names. Again.

Alright, here we are again with the same user making the same edits with the same.ensuing edit war.

WP:CommonName dictates Trey's surname is Miguel. He's been referred to as Trey Miguel on commentary as such, his mother's name was given as "Ms Miguel" during his feud with Ace Austin, his name is for all intents and purposes Trey Miguel. This constant edit war every 6-12 months is getting annoying. 111.69.70.125 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhupinder Singh

Because I'm at the end of my rope with constant edit wars over Bhupinder Singh, until there's proof he's left Impact, or at least is no longer under a developmental contract, I'd like any edits on him by FranXBC or whatever his name is undone and editor intervention taken. At this point the edits no longer constitute unnsourced edits, they constitute vandalism, given they've been at this since at least December last year. SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User as described above now vandalising article logged out using https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.153.191.121. Same deal goes. User been at this since December 2019, seems to not understand what a development contract is, is easily detectable by removing Bhupinder Singh and Shogun Jackson Stone and the broken English he uses in his edit notes. 2407:7000:9C7F:9464:95EA:743F:8B6F:667E (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Wilde

Alright, this is getting annoying. If you're going to add Taylor Wilde in, include a source. That's the entire point of having the ability to add a source, otherwise anybody could add anyone whether they're there or not. SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've since added a reliable source stating that she has indeed returned. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

AEW-Impact

Please don't add AEW wrestlers to the roster if they happen to pop up on Impact.

Impact and AEW have an off-screen business partnership and are doing an on-screen "Invasion" style storyline where wrestlers are going on each other's shows and causing trouble.

So knowing all this, don't rush to the keyboard/iPhone to add names to the list if a guest pays a visit.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An amendment - if a visitor wins a title, then they get an automatic free pass. This was the case for NJPW's FinJuice after they won the Tag Team Titles, and should Kenny Omega win the Impact World Title tonight at Rebellion. Obviously once they lose their titles, they get removed...works both ways. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
That's not how that works. Kenny Omega is not contracted by Impact. He is there through an agreement between AEW and Impact. Yes, he holds the Impact World Championship, but again, he is not contracted by Impact Wrestling. --JDC808 ♫ 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Nobody ever said he was contracted by Impact. However, champions automatically get added to the list - been that way for like a decade. This isn't new - champions have ALWAYS gotten a free pass on the premise of if you're gonna do a list of wrestlers, then the champions have to be included. Once Omega (or FinJuice, since they're in the same boat) loses the title, he goes bye-bye. I was the one who cautioned not to include everyone who makes a crossover, and I still hold true to that (like if for example if someone added The Good Brothers to the AEW page, I'd be the first to remove them)...BUT...if you hold a company's title, then that's the proverbial exception to the rule. What's the point of having a list of wrestlers if you don't include the champions? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You're correct, nobody said he was contracted by Impact, which is why he does not belong here. It doesn't matter how long something has been done if it's been done wrong. You really have to stop with this "free pass" thing. They are not contracted employees of this company thus do not belong on this list of personnel for a company they do not work for. Again, they are only appearing through an agreement. Yes, they hold Impact's championship, but they ARE NOT employees (i.e., personnel) of Impact Wrestling. Like I linked to you in my last edit summary, they ARE NOT listed as wrestlers of Impact Wrestling. They are only listed on the champions page because they hold the championships. That is as far as it goes. "What's the point of having a list of wrestlers if you don't include the champions?" Well first off, this isn't just a list of wrestlers, it's a list of all the employees of the company, which again, Omega and FinJuice are not. Secondly, if their wrestlers don't hold the championship(s), then the champion isn't listed. Simple as that. --JDC808 ♫ 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a Rolodex

We have no business listing the entire staff/whatever of this outfit. User:Vjmlhds just put a bunch of em back in (not notable people, of course, without a Wikipedia article), saying they are "the ones who sign the checks and make the major comapny decisions". Well, that doesn't make em notable; the person who answers the phone is arguably as important, or more important, than a videographer or an accountant. We should treat this like an encyclopedic article, and list notable people, just as we do for, for instance, radio and TV stations. Entries without secondary sources can easily be argued to be BLP violations also. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And so who gets to make this call? You simply came in here deleting things without notice. SkylerLovefist (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Policy makes this call. Read this. The list being removed is trivia, and as Drmies said not notable. There is also a consensus that lists should not have any redlinks or no links. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Addicted4517: In that case, the WWE and NWA rosters need to be changed. NWA roster includes camera operators and photographers. --83.40.25.172 (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
And so removed. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Addicted, why are all of your edits undoing other people's work instead of adding to articles? Edit: I rest my case. That's the second time you've undone that same user's edits improperly citing a Wikipedia Guideline. "I don't know who or what that is and I haven't witnessed it myself, therefore it's an incorrect edit" isn't the standard we edit by. SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refreshed your knowledge of properly addressing other users and so on thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop undermining other users all the time because quite frankly it comes across as uncivil. Not only have you once again improperly used a WP because I haven't made any personal attacks and certainly haven't done any of the examples in that article, none of your edits actually seem done to add to articles. They're all you undoing other people's edits and as you've done with myself and this other user, rather than accepting it when you're proven wrong, you further nitpick to get the last word. This is where edit wars and violations of the three revert rule begin happening. SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning: Making unfounded accusations may result in a formal complaint through WP:AN. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That's yet another incorrect citation. Legitimate criticism for negative behaviour is neither a personal attack, nor an unfounded accusation. Your edit history indicates a significant majority of, if not all of your edits are you undoing other user's edits, often incorrectly citing WP articles, using your own opinions for invalidating other users along with starting edit wars and being inflexible. SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

And yet you accuse him of deleting stuff when it's YOU deleting stuff here!! I know who I would believe out of you two with the rules around that! He's putting rules right and all you come back with is your opinion. Anyway - for Addicted here's your proof from an independent source. Next time, Skyler, go get a proper source instead of being a stick in the mud and pushing opinions and social media hmmm? 1.136.105.207 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How about you make an actual account and mind your own business? You want to talk about violating WP: Civil? And as I've explained to Addicted (who I'm not entirely convinced isn't whoever you are) multiple times, Twitter is a Valid source, especially when the source is the guy who runs Fightful. Mind your own business. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Social Media is NEVER a valid source and don't talk to me about "civility", Mister Rude! Looks like you're running around trying to avoid scrutiny! 1.136.104.127 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not correct. Social media can be a valid source in limited circumstances. And it is not appropriate to behave in a manner that is the same as that which you are concerned with. In fact I would suggest your lack of civility and attacking is even worse. The only thing you provided correctly was the link that was indeed the variety of source that was required. I support Skyler's assertion that you obtain an account and also that you avoid disputes between users. Speaking for myself I consider this matter closed. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmph! 1.136.104.127 (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This "Last Word" Nonsense.

Can people please refrain from trying to get the last word in when people are proving they've made an unhelpful subtraction from this article? If you're proven wrong, gracefully accept it, or don't make the edit to start with, and don't follow it up by nitpicking the correction which was made solely to save face. It doesn't come across as WP: Civil, but more of an ego issue. Thank you. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not unhelpful if the edits are against wikipedia policies. They explained to you and you keep doing the same thing. The problem is that you see this policies that you ignored as nitpicking. --83.40.25.172 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, random IP address, but that's not what I'm getting at. Read what I wrote again. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Josh Alexander

What do we do about Josh? I see JoshProst99 has removed him, but given the current storyline, can we be certain this isn't some massive work? The guy quite his job a few months back because he'd gotten a payrise from Impact. That kind of indicates he signed a new contract. Plus Eddie Edwards is the only one who's said anything on Twitter. *Plus* there was that "I'm gonna miss this place" tweet from when he got "suspended" which mysteriously went missing after gaining traction.

So what should we do? Keep him gone until we have confirmation either way? SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For now, let's just keep him off. If he pops up at No Surrender or on Impact, that will tell us all we need to know. But until then - to keep the peace - leave him off. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

'Honor No More' addition and removal from talent roster

Matt Taven, Mike Bennett, Maria Kanellis, PCO, Vincent have been added/removed a few times from the article. I would presume they aren't on the ImpactWrestling.com roster page because they're being billed as 'outsiders'. They are however appearing weekly for the promotion and have an upcoming PPV match. I would think they should be added. Thoughts? BBX118 22:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I recommend to reas WP:consenus. "consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." 1not the result of a vote 2,my concerns have not been resolved. 3 respecting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the information stills unsourced--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of consensus is to have multiple sets of eyeballs look at something and come to a decision on the best way to go forward - 1 man does not hold an article hostage when 3 others have come to an agreement. So why are HHH Pedrigree's concerns more important than those of Vjmlhds, SkylerLovefist or BBX118? You are exhibiting a lot of WP:Own tendencies here - you know "my way or the highway". You expressed your concerns, great. Three other editors felt that it wasn't that big of a deal and we should go ahead and add the others. That's how consensus works. Sometimes you just can't have things go exactly your way...you take the "L" and move on. God knows I've done it my fair share of times around here. You can't preach consensus on some issues and then not want to follow it on others. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, consensus is NOT a vote and YOUR editions are against WP policies because are unsourced. Here is the thing. You want to include a new information. I asked for souces supporting that. No one had given any source, but you decided to include the information anyways. NO. Consensus "while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". A consensus can't end with including unsourced information, since it's against the rules. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Got news for you - a policy isn't a rule. If consensus gives something a thumbs up, then you just have to live with it It doesn't matter what YOU ask for since it isn't YOUR job to play gatekeeper. A discussion was held, three said add, one said no, therefore consensus is to add. You can ask for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all day long - doesn't mean you're gonna get any. Sometimes, consensus just goes against you - just how this pop stand works. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." If you don't understand this... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's beginning to annoy me, actually. I'm growing increasingly annoyed at how for some reason one or two people seem to have reached the understanding with themselves that everyone else's edits must reach their interpretation of WP policies or we're not allowed to add our edits. Logic would dictate that if you have an invading group of six people, you'd sign all of them, not just three members and pick another three at random. I'm not asking for "Well WP: herpandderp says this," I'm asking if that makes sense using Common sense. SkylerLovefist (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't know what's going on on Impact backstage, why they didn't sign the 6 of them. But sources state that Impact only signed PCO, Mike and Maria, not the others. Since at least we need one third-party source stating that the wrestler signed with the company (or at least, appearing on the roster page). While commonsense can work sometimes, I think but this enter into the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH category (since 3 signed a contrat, that means the 6 signed a contract).--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I mean, the idea of the rosters is to include people who are under contract with the promotion. Not a pay-per-appearence deal, to avoid tryouts, special appearences and similar (like wrestlers who perform on AEW Dark). So, with that bar, there are sources for Mike, Maria and PCO and I tried to find sources for the other 3, but I cant find nothing. Aksing why they didn't sign all of them.. it's a mysterie. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem in your wording l. "*I THINK* it falls under Synth/OR." Three other people disagree, and your only counterpoint to "does signing three and not the others make sense" seems to be "I don't know, but here's my interpretation of every WP being cited here." Therefore it stands to reason that the only counterpoint here to a consensus and to common sense is one person's personal interpretation, which in itself goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. As VJ says- it comes across as WP:Own to a point. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Stating that a wrestler signed a contract just because other wrestlers signed a contract it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Stills no source to verify that information, just sources for Mike, Maria and PCO, not the others. You including it's based because you think that, maybe, they signed a contract, but no third-party sources nor the promotion reported it. So, no reason to include based on your personal opinion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the day anyone can whip out WP:This and WP:That and throw it in everyone's face. Dirty little secret - a lot of Wiki policies contradict each other and essentially cancel each other out (a by product of having TOO MANY policies to be honest). This is why we have discussions - to cut through the BS so we can come to agreements. Can't please everyone...I get that, but sometimes you have to grin and bear it. 4 editors discussed the matter, 3 said A, 1 said B, thus making A the consensus. That's just how it works. No one policy carries more weight than when a consensus is met...that's why we go through all this back and forth to begin with. Bottom line, all the other guys should be added. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS ""while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"." Please, make a try and read the argument I gave. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
You can respect a policy all day long, but if a consensus of editors doesn't feel it's relevant to a certain topic, then that's it. No policy trumps consensus...heck, policies THEMSELVES change if a consensus wanted to do it, so please don't treat wiki policies like they are constitutional law. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS ""while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It feels like you keep trying to counterpoint what we've said with the very things we're arguing against. A consensus has been reached and I kinda feel like Administrator intervention may be our best option here, particularly when it's 3 versus 1. I also note, HHHPedrigree, you keep avoiding addressing my point about common sense. So I again put to you: why would they sign three and not the other three? SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I know Impact signed 3 because there are sources. Why not the 6 of them? I don't know, but still no sources. Again, Consensus is not a vote and my concerns (lack of sources) aren't addressed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And again, you're not the one we have to get approval from. So I feel we need to get an official last word because this is going nowhere. None of us are gonna budge. You're insisting you're right in spite of consensus, and we feel our edits are valid due to what we believe to be common sense. SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

if you want to reach an adim, ok. I'm still. To include a wrestler in the roster, we need a source stating that he signed a contract. Since there is no source, it's unsourced and WP:OR. Even if 3 users agree, the information is unsourced and no consensus can override that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It isn't OR or SYNTH... That's the problem. This *is* WP: Own, however. SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It really is almost to the point where one is so devoted to observing every single letter of the "law" (which it really isn't, it's just a guideline when you get right down to it) so precisely, they can't see the forest for the trees. It really is almost like the story of the Wikipedian whose house caught on fire, but wouldn't call the fire department because he needed a source to say his house was in fact on fire. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And that's why I get frustrated at times editing this particular article. It's where my problems with a certain other user come from too: Why does it feel like whenever we make edits we have to make sure it's OK by one or two other users? This is a community encyclopedia, yet several users seem to have this "I have to say it's OK first and it has to meet my criteria for being a valid edit" attitude? SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

SkylerLovefist Truthfully, you should just add the people who should be added, and not let certain other editors bother you. Remember, YOU are PART of the consensus, not the one going against it. So if you want to set things a certain way, you are well entitled to do so...don't let outside noise influence you...you have just as much right to make an edit as anyone else does. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also kinda curious why that Addicted guy has been snitch tagged on his talk page. SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have come in late to this one and while HHH Pedrigree has a point, there is an out - and that's putting the ROH wrestlers in a separate section. There is no doubt they are working for Impact but obviously they wouldn't be listed so sourcing that would be impossible as Impact would be maintaining the kayfabe line. The best compromise I think is a separate section, which can be combined if they win the match at No Surrender. The signed match can serve as the source. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point now seeing as No Surrender is this Saturday. The easiest thing to do at this point is keep the status quo. if the ROH crew wins (which is the more likely scenario) they stay, or they go bye-bye if they lose. This way we don't have to go through all the muck of a separate section. If this were a month ago, I'd be more inclined to go along with it, but at this point we're too close to No Surrender to go through the hassle. Let's just cool our jets and see what happens Saturday, and then we go from there. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And there we go. They're staying. Matter resolved once and for all. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Honor No More crew are all now officially listed on the Impact website roster under the collective "Honor No More" banner. Check and mate. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Whilst it did work out in the end, it may be an idea in the future to avoid crystal balling in effect. For future reference I think if anything like this happens in the future (knock on wood) that maybe my suggestion may be the most neutral solution until we get certainty one way or the other. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Except we had this discussion already and there are times where letting being anally retentive override commonsense doesn't make any sense. This entire discussion followed Wikipedia policies up to and including census. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually it didn't and it was only let go for reasons of practicality and timing and not because of Wikipedia policies. This comment is another example of your failure to observe the rules of civility. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you say, chief. The point is, consensus was reached and that's how we do things here, the article doesn't belong to one or two people. The issue is resolved, point proven. SkylerLovefist (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Certain Editing.

Just a reminder that WP:OWN is a thing. Undoing edits because you personally don't know what was edited in falls under that principle. We've had edit wars previously to the real names of two Knockouts and it looks like we're heading in that direction with Matt Cardona's titles. Are we going to undo literally every single edit which doesn't have an article attached to it now? SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes because without a source it is original research, certainly when it comes to Matt Cardona's titles being recognised by Impact. This is not a matter for WP:OWN so please stop bringing that up as it is disruptive. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, it's very, very interesting how you seem to show up wherever I edit. It IS a case of WP:OWN, because you constantly expect people to edit to YOUR specifications. Any time an edit happens with information you don't have knowledge of, you undo it. As I stated in my opening statement: do we have to now inline source every single piece of information in the article such as real names, titles owned, roles in the company, the name of the company, the owners of the company, etc? SkylerLovefist (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna single anyone out, because I've dealt with plenty of these kinds of editors over the LOOOOOOOOOOONG time I've been here, but some people just kind of like to play "gatekeeper" around here - "you can't add such and such until I say so!" They take it upon themselves to fight for truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way, and it comes off as very off putting. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep, and it's why I struggle to stay civil sometimes. It's difficult when you know you're right yet some people have come to the conclusion you need their permission to add content. Especially when the only time they ever edit is to remove other people's content. I think the regular editors on this article do a pretty good job. But it's a group effort, not a group effort until one or two people say so and then they turn into Fallah Bahh. SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Curious how VJ is the editor who usually edits the article but he complains others to WP:OWN the title. In the last 50 edits, 25 are from VJ. On the other side, in the last 250 edits, Addicted just made 5. Again, stop with the "everyone is against me". Addicted is right, with no sources, the content is WP:OR. No sources, no Wikipedia. He is no acting as the owner of the article, but following a basic policy of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.". No my way or Addicted way, the Wikipedia way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said anything about WP:Own regarding this article, so don't put words in my mouth. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, both your attitude is deplorable. Every time I see Addicted making a edit, is for the same reason. You don't source the information, so he removes (which is right, since every information must be sourced in Wikipedia). Stop with the attitude of "everyone is against me". If you read the rules and follow them, everything is gonna be better for everyone. If you want the info about Cardona, use a source to prove the information, no just a comment in the edit summary. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone's edit/reasoning does not make one - or their attitude - "deplorable"...someone else once used that word, and it blew up in their face, so don't be so quick to throw people in baskets. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of pot calling the kettle black in this response. You're doing exactly what we're talking about: gatekeeping. You think something should be a certain way, therefore it has to be that way, and if it's not the way you like it, it's wrong. The number of edits has nothing to do with WP:OWN, and most of VJ's edits are good edits fixing things and adding things, as opposed to constantly undoiing other people's edits and legitimately engaging in WP:OWN.
Addicted isn't right. It's more disruptive, WP:OWN editing. The goal is to provide accurate information, not make one or two people happy or have our edits undone. It's interesting how the policies which agree with you are "the Wikipedia way" while ignoring other policies such as WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS don't. If it's not WP:OWN, please explain why you tagged him into the Honor No More discussion when you were outvoted 3-1 on the edit as if his opinion held more merit than the majority? Every single bit of this falls under WP:OWN.SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Addicted is right. He asked for source, you gave nothing, which is against Wikipolicies. Not OWN since he barely edits the article and his complains follows Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you see it as gatekeeping, that's your problem. But the edit stills unsourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, remember Wikipedia:Consensus: "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Consensus doesn't override Wikipedia:Verifiability and Addicted concerns hasn't been incorporated (nosource to your claim) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't talking specifically the article. It was blatant what I meant. It's WP:OWN because (as I've quite plainly said at least twice now) both you and him demand we meet your criteria or we have our edits removed. Interesting you showed up on the discussion about NZWPW being closed and his disruptive editing preventing up to date and accurate information, by the way. Almost seems like you're following me around which violates Wikipedia policy too. He can ask for sources all he wants. It isn't his article. As I've asked which also keeps getting ignored: are we supposed to throw out sourcing any time any information at all is entered into the article, because there are a lot of things in there without references. Addicted demanded references for Lady Frost and Masha Slamovich's real names in spite of no-one else having their real names sourced. "Seeing it as gatekeeping" means it's against Wikipedia policy and once again you're showing your own WP:OWN tendencies by telling me my opinion is less valid than yours. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:OWN is not asking other users to follow basic rules. More like everything you don't like it's WP:OWN (my editions are WP:OWN, asking you to read policies is WP:OWN...) Also, the NZWPW discussion, you asked for more opinion, so it wasn't closed. At the moment, no sources, no info. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I see a own behavior from you you are the one who want to keep including information without source HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"No you" isn't an argument and nor is ignoring your own behaviour. Self-appointed infallibility doesn't make you infallible. Nor is pretending you're not following users around which is also a common negative behaviour. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

HHH is right. No source, no inclusion - it's as simple as that. And saying "there are other unreferenced items, therefore we can add more" is obviously poor logic. — Czello 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No he isn't, and I like how you took a small portion of what I said out of context.

I like how nobody is addressing a bulk of what I'm saying. Almost like there's no actual counter argument and it's a whole lot of ignoring WP:OWN behaviour. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: & @Czello: - Thank you. I was on the verge of reporting these two for disruptive editing, but your intervention in support of my edit has made that unnecessary. Further, thank you for making the argument against WP:OWN for me and for it for them. SkylerLovefist's reply here demonstrates that he doesn't understand the rule and doesn't want to because he has a personal beef with me. HHH Pedrigree has already seen this on another talk page. It brings into question as to whether or not he really wants to collaborate, or just put what he wants with taking responsibility for it under WP rules. The latter present a strong case for WP:NOTHERE. I have had this page on my watchlist for more than 12 months now so the acusation that I am following users around carries no weight at all. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
"Reporting these two for disruptive editing." Translation: Doing exactly what I'm saying you're doing. All you do is run around undoing everyone else's edits. That's the definition of WP:OWN. Look at Buddy Murphy's article. There was that utterly pointless edit war which happened because you kept misusing Wiki Policies to claim the man telling us what his new name was was somehow incorrect information. You're not willing to work with others, you want people to do things your way and have the final say, which by its definition is WP:OWN. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
We can get into arguments about who's WP:OWNing what, but ultimately the only thing that matters is if we have a source that states Impact recognises these titles. Until one is provided, I think we're just going in circles here. — Czello 07:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
As it sits now it's 3-2 against including the smaller indy titles, so I can live with leaving them out - that's what discussions are for. However, I do believe Addicted does have a bit of a "holier than thou" attitude, and it rubs people the wrong way. Not trying to make things personal, just saying you can make your point without talking down to people (may not be intentional, but it's how it comes off). No issues with HHH or Czello - they made their arguments and left them at that, so they're fine. But Addicted does need to come down off the high horse, and I can see Skyler's issue there (truthfully 5 or 6 years ago I probably would have after Addicted harder than Skyler is now, but age and real life have made me more diplomatic, and realize not every hill is worth dying on). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
VJ does have a point about it being 3 vs 2, and it would be hypocritical of me to play the consensus card and then ignore it. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Shogun and The Other Gutcheck Winners...

So what's the story with Shogun and the two dudes who won the last Gutcheck? Keep 'em off the roster until they officially debut on TV full-time? Shogun is slowly being dripfed into TV appearances with the second IPWF special, a BTE appearance and the Reverse Battle Royal at Slammiversary, whereas the other two guys have signed contracts but aren't on TV yet.

Leave 'em off so we don't have any "k, so what's happening with this guy...?" Situations with Bhupinder? SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling_personnel/Archive_4&oldid=1268439282"