User talk:Edit4Peace

Hulk Hogan

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to Hulk Hogan have been removed because the citation you added was to another Wikipedia article or an external wiki. As discussed at our policies on circular sourcing and self-published sources, Wikipedia and other wikis should not be used in citations because they are not considered reliable sources. You are welcome to re-add the information using a better reference, perhaps from the article you originally cited. 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.

Hello, I'm Jay8g. An edit that you recently made to Hulk Hogan seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was not made by a ai chat bot. I write my edits separately in google docs and then copy and paste them into Wikipedia editors. Out of curiosity does this trigger a red flag because I’m copying and pasting? Thanks Bighulkamania (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have various formatting errors that are commonly found in AI-generated text. It's possible that Google is introducing those errors too. Please just edit on Wikipedia directly instead of copy/pasting to avoid formatting errors. Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it generally the citations or something else? Bighulkamania (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Hulk Hogan, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this tip. I found that out the hard way. I’m curious, why are people deleting the new information? There was citation and statistics. Hulk page is pretty embarrassing right now. It looks like someone went through and delete many common known facts to make him appear less special. I was shocked when it didn’t list his 6 historic Andre the Giant matches. While Wrestlemania III was the most famous, the other 5 broke records. For example the NBC rematch is still the most watched wrestling match in TV history. Bighulkamania (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. RF23 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It done this as you have said; if you go back you will find I have responded to all message i have received and you are falsely accusing me of “attacks”. This is why I knew the best route was arbitration, it seems like there is no consensus to be reached with you and that you don’t really want to behave. Edit4Peace (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this will be the final message of me wasting time talking to you because you aren’t listening to anyone. You have repeatedly attacked other editors, constantly calling experienced editors biased. Until you can show you understand Wikipedia policies and have a civil discussion, people aren’t going to have a conversation with you. RF23 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan

Hello. Sorry for the delay, I was on a trip. About Hogan...

Thanks for your contribution, but, as you see on the talk page, the problem is the article is huge and other users are trying to summarize it, not add more material.

As far as I remember

1) You removed the note about Backlund's reign. I think it's important since it's a WWE number, not a real number since Backlund lost the title to Inoki.

2) I removed the tables of total reigns since no other article has these tables. Also, the info can be found in the Championships section, plus the prose section.

3) You removed from the Lead the sexual tape/racial slur scandal. I was thinking to include it before the death, but after Hogan passed away, It confirmed my thoughs. The controversy damaged his reputation and was a key point of his life. Many sources after his death mentions the racial slur, but no one talks about a restored reputation. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree his page is very hard to read and Respectfully I think you are sidestepping the issue of deleting over 2,000 words relating to his wrestling career. I don’t disagree that hogans page should be brief but I do disagree; and feel strongly that it should be filled with extensive stats and statistics. Deleting important facts and events to accomplish a shorter profile seems counter productive to an encyclopedia format. word counts with career statistics should be favored instead of wasted word counts over explaining controversies and gossip about hogans personal life. That’s why I question your motivation because you did not edit the erroneous personal life and business/endorsements section while deleting Hogan’s accomplishments. Doing so appears bias because it looks like you are trying to diminish hogans successful career. To avoid this, that’s why i deliberately left his personal life section alone and only added content that was missing from his career. I would like an explanation please responding to the point I have raised above.

in response to your 3 counter points-

- I don’t recall deleting the backland fact; if I did it was not intentional…also the Antonio Inoki reign is irrelevant to your point because Bobs second reign after regaining from Inoki is still longer than Hogan’s third reign making Hogan the third longest reign regardless. The argument you’re making also makes zero sense, because under your logic Hogan would have the 4th largest reign. Bruno’s 1st was the longest, Bruno’s 2nd comes in 2nd, then Bob’s 2nd, then Hogan’s 1st, then Roman’s Reigns most recent(if you count the 2nd universal title, but only his time between winning the WWE championship at Wrestlemania 39-Wrestlemania 41 should count), then Pedro, then Bob’s 1st, then CM Punk, followed by Savage and Hogans 2nd at a tie, then Diesel, and AJ Styles coming in last. I do believe the bob fact your bringing up is very irrelevant though; because most people look at cumulative time as champion; being Bruno 1st, Bob 2nd, Hogan 3rd, Reigns 4th(debatable if pre universal unification counts but he still beat Punk &

Pedro either way ), CM Punk 5th, Pedro 6th, Savage 7th, Diesel 8th, AJ Styles 9th. HHH and Cena may have beaten Savage also but I don’t know for certain.

- many articles have these tables, it’s a way to simply the history of championships. The history of WWF championship is an example of such table. Tables makes the page easier to read and the information more brief than typing a paragraph, so deleting it sounds counter productive to your reasoning. Also just because you have not seen other pages use tables why is that legit cause to delete it?

- I left that he said a racial slur in the proper context of the situation. Also it’s very easy to prove it did not permanently damage his reputation because several articles have quotes from black wrestlers and friends who where hogans friends; such as Booker T, Dennis Rodman, Kamala, Tony Atlas and Mr T have publicly said nice things about hogan in regards to race and specifically stating publicly that hogan is NOT a racist. There is also the debate and facts that Hulk was set up, put under the influence intentionally, and the perpetrators introduced the racial slurs in an attempt to illegally entrap Hulk to being filmed saying horrible things in order to waiter hulk or to sell the footage at a later date. Many news reporting at the time; and i am specifically citing the documentary about this mentioned original premise was Bubba recorded hulk on purpose to sell the footage incase him and his wife ever needed money. That’s why he removed the footage and carelessly left it unprotected in his office where it was found and later used as blackmail by an employee. Bubba removed the footage because he was divorcing his wife and didn’t trust her not to attempt to sell it. I am distressing… MY POINT IS His reputation also was restored by WWE’s reinstatement in the hall of fame, continual involvement in WWE, and record breaking 5 tributes 3 10 bell salutes given in his honed. Also there is no denying his career rebounded as he secured many high profile corporate endorsements and spokesmen offers since the audio leaked. There are actually many articles written that do make these statements. Most people think digging up the racial slurs controversy stems from cancel culture political bias; that is common to happen to Republican endorsements(accusations of racism and reputation destroying attempts) and especially Trump endorsements. Which is why every attempt to make the racial slurs a focal point of Hogan’s biography should be scrutinized intensely partially since his celebrity endorsement of Trump was historically significant in having a effect on election outcomes. Not letting the reader aware of any of this in the lead after making an opinionated statement such as “permanently” destroyed reputation can be seen as opinion; unless you include facts or events after the audio leaked to show his career and reputation rebounded. I recommend removing the remark “permanently damaged reputation” and adding information after. (However I support making hogans lead two paragraphs and leaving all controversial info off the lead.) However the legal verdict was a historical precedent established against the press so that is relevant to his bio as well as his 2025 political endorsements; so I do understand if people disagree and think those two points be in the lead. Hogan being the most effective celebrity endorsement in modern history since Frank Sinatra endorsed JFK is significant achievement to the power of his restored reputation after controversies. (Otherwise according to your opinion of permanent reputation damage, his endorsement would have hurt Trumps election in a significant way) Hulks historic speech at the GOP convention still continues to receive commentary and is widely considered one of Hogans best public appearances. It also belongs to because no other pro wrestling personality has ever received equal recognition from a U.S. President; except perhaps Hogan himself when he visited Regan at the White House or HHH when he recently was at the White House to receive a presidential position as a chairman over a national fitness program.

Please reply with your counter points. I don’t intend to make any reverts about what we are discussing until we come to a consensus in respect to your edits. However I must have clarification; since you did not bring it up is it safe to assume you agree hogans statistical information regarding important matches and feuds should be brought back to his page?

looking forward to hearing your opinions. Bighulkamania (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Edit4Peace! 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

Happy editing! Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shirt58

Thank you for acknowledging my contributions. Unfortunate I am very frustrated and considering leaving. How do I get admin support from Wikipedia about users targeting my content in an edit war and excessively deleting EVERYTHING i have spent hours researching and contribution. I added a topic to the administrative page but it only dragged the same users into a further conflict with me; instead of inviting neutral parties. They seem to just get offended when I answer their demands for proof and citations; and because more passionate and rude as it progresses. They twist the subjects around and take contradicting positions out of spite instead of providing substance. That administrative page seems like a total failure. What is the next step? Edit4Peace (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edit4Peace,

You've been an editor for only 2 weeks and you've made about 120 edits. Please think twice before you accuse editors who have been active here for over a decde of being "biased" because you have a disagreement with them over content. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing platform and you should be focused on getting to know other editors and creating allies rather than attacking them. That's an quick way to lose your editing privileges. Right now, you seem to only care about one article so your contributions to this project seem very limited at best. We need editors that are willing to learn and work with others, not wrestling fans. You can go to Fandom if you want to only edit about Hulk Hogan.

Also, you need to adjust your signature to display your name or you need to change your username to match your signature. For more information about these points, bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you have understood my premise and I’m upset you have taken sides, and not addressed any of my questions.

the edits on hulk Hogan’s page do appear bias, as the same editors trying to cut back unnecessary information are excessively deleting postive parts of hogans wrestling career but added unnecessary comments about his negative personal life (see edits about black wrestlers by LM on hogans personalize subsection)

also, how do you see it not as retaliation of HHH pedigree deleting ALL of the content I added on the List of NWA world champions and List of WCW world champions after I responded to the talk page?

alos I find your comments rude and dismissive, and you havnt addressed my main concern is that HHH Pedigree appears to be trying to start a edit war on NWA List of World Champions. How are these excessive deleting justified? I think he has enough experience to manipulate the wiki rules and retaliate without getting supervised.

which seems to be the result, as you immaturly reply that I should be editing on fandom.

what makes me angry, is i politely have stopped adding content until a consensus is reached. Otherwise I would be over 1,000 edits by now. I also did not revert HHH Pedigrees edits on the NwA and WCW page in retaliation. I have also follower protocol by using the users talk page as you mentioned.

i would like all of my concerns and questions answered by yourself or another editor, and I think I deserve a apology for your comments. Thank you for your time. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully awaiting your reply Edit4Peace (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, Edit4Peace,

I've noticed that you are posting messages at the very top of User talk pages. This is improper and I would think you would have learned over the past two weeks that new messages go at the bottom of a talk page, not the top. You might consider returning to these talk pages and moving your messages so that other editors will notice them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I added messages to the talk page I used the add topic button. I wasn’t given a choice for the location of these messages. I added the messages because I read Wikipedia prefers you to message users first on their talk pages. How do you avoid these top posts in the future? It didn’t really present a option of where to locate them. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protip

When your edits are being reverted across separate articles by several different users, the issue rarely lies with those users being too biased or stupid to understand your work. We've been discussing this for a week now and you should take time to review the related policies and guidelines before making more substantial edits.LM2000 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you, my edits were very well researched with citations. I made coding mistakes, but beyond that you are behaving very immaturely. Rarely provide examples. And then engage in hyperbole and hypocritical actions. You will find that you and I agree on a lot about Wikipedia, you just don’t want to apply your own rules to yourself. The hogan page is edited in good faith, but you left it extremely unorganized and contradict yourself by leaving negative stats and quotes while relying positive information. I think you should step away from the hulk hogan page and stop stalking my edits across Wikipedia. It’s clear your excessively deleting information and not adding content with is against the policies. HHH was clearing targeting me across Wikipedia pages. Non of his is personal. Just step back and examine my edits from a third person perspective and you won’t get upset. I do agree, admin intervention is needed for you, HHH, Liz, and the Random Edits guy so you will behave and perhaps learn how to debate issues on the talk page more professionally. Just saying “he didn’t do it right” or “I don’t think it was bias” adds no substance. I’m quit surprised by your behavior regarding this and your editing, since you have so much experience on Wikipedia you would have behaved in a more mature fashion. I’m interested in your replies. Hopefully you don’t choose to ignore them like you did previously and will keep talking. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LM2000 (along with many other editors) has given you some good advice. Instead of just disagreeing, you would find it beneficial to take what they say on board and perhaps read WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY while you're at it.

Your current attitude is leading directly towards a block. — Czello ^(music) 06:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitudes and criticisms are so counterproductive and hypocritical. All you do is just avoid direct questions and the whine when people reply to your comments with substance. LM has been exposed for biased editing that is not in good faith; you can’t seem to acknowledge or deny the evidence that’s been presented and it’s suspicious he deletes tons of hogan info but adds negative content. Please stop replying unless you wish respond to questions directly. I really feel like dealing with you is like I’m Sen Booker trying to pull info out of a Trump Admin crony. It’s all deflection and no answers! Edit4Peace (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in professional wrestling. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--tony 15:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Tony, are you the admin? I requested help on this issue. I was participating in talk pages about Hulk Hogan. User HHH Pedigree disagreed with me; and the deleted my content I added on two other wrestling related pages. I believe he was retaliating and attempting to start an edit war. He didn’t edit my content; just deleted everything entirely. I have edit the pages in good faith and don’t appreciate the rude accusations several editors are using against me on hulk hogans talk page. They don’t even respond when I present points or citations to discuss over. There is clear bias on their part. What do I do to elevate this situation? Edit4Peace (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, no. If it's ok, I'd like to share one of my favorite essays with you, written about the types of situations that you seem to be describing (a "one-vs-many" situation). It has advice on how to proceed. I'll link it here: WP:1AM. Take care --tony 18:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, I chose to continue with arbitration. I’m just asking them to stop deleting my content, not engaging over who’s right or who’s wrong. It just doesn’t seem right this user is following me to all the pages i contribute to and deleting EVERYTHING and not editing it.

I have a question, maybe you can help. these were the direction on the arbitration bubble.

You must inform all parties that they have been named in this request using You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#CASENAME and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,.

question 1: I did the above and notified the users on their talk page. Did I do the right thing?

Once you have done this provide the diff of the notification in the area provided.

question 2: I have no clue what they mean “provide the diff on notification in the area provided”… do you understand stand this?

Can I show you a link to my arbitration request? I think it’s public so it’s ok to share. Edit4Peace (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am aware my arbitration notice was denied, I don’t think you understood my question to you however. I would like to discuss this situation with you. Would you please give me your opinion? Is it considered ok for users to go about deleting all of another users contributions through Wikipedia? Do you see in relation in their behavior? Can you please ask them to stop? Please read my statement again. I’m very interested in your reply about this and don’t understand why you keep avoiding it and changing the subject.

After joining the Hulk Hogan talk page discussions, user HHH Pedigree took issue with my comments about other editors’ contributions. Soon afterward, he deleted all of the content I had added to two unrelated wrestling pages. I believe this was retaliatory, excessive, and not in good faith, seemingly aimed at provoking an edit war. He gave minimal edit summaries and stopped engaging with me entirely. They also never explained why all of my edits across multiple pages were removed in the same hour. Rather than restore the content and risk escalating things, I opened a discussion on an administrative noticeboard to resolve the issue peacefully. Unfortunately, the discussion became one-sided. Another user, Ringfan23, followed the same pattern, removing all of my contributions from the Virgil (wrestler) page and labeling me a “problem user” in the edit summary, again without prior discussion. These mass deletions seem retaliatory and targeted. I’ve responded respectfully, answered every question, and provided reliable sources to support my content. My replies were detailed and in good faith. This seemed to only frustrate these two users further. I’ve also observed edits that appear intended to cast Hulk Hogan in a negative light, possibly in bad faith, but I acknowledge that proving intent is difficult. What I can show is a pattern of retaliatory bulk deletions, a refusal to engage collaboratively, and behavior seemingly intended to push me into violating policy.↵My concern is not about content disputes regarding Hulk Hogan. I understand editorial disagreements happen. What I am objecting to is the mass deletion of my edits, many of which were properly sourced, across multiple unrelated pages. These were removed without sufficient explanation or discussion. I’m asking for a fair opportunity to contribute. Please ask HHH Pedigree and Ringerfan23 to stop blanket deleting my work across multiple pages. I welcome revisions and constructive feedback, especially since I’m still learning formatting and editing guidelines. But removing all of my work without review is not constructive and undermines Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit. I’ve spent considerable time researching and contributing to these pages. It’s unreasonable to believe that all of my content was invalid. I’m seeking a fair path forward, not conflict. ↵Thank you for your time and consideration.

HHH Pedigree NWA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history

HHH Pedigree WCW: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WCW_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history

Ringerfan23 Virgil: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_(wrestler)

Ringerfan 23 Hogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_Hogan&action=history Edit4Peace (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider taking these endless discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling where you might find other editors who care about this subject. I'm more interested in reading about South American slugs than about wrestlers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then WHY did you take the assignment in the first place? Especially since your time is so precious for slugs. Explain your logic regarding this entire situation. Seems like all you want to do is just avoid answering questions directly. I’m very disappointed in your editing skills and your ability to pass the buck along. If you don’t like wrestling, then why did you put yourself as the admin in the middle of this? You still have yet to apologize for demeaning my efforts because I’m a new user. Still shocked by that’s you’d like a women who studies slugs would value people based on the content of their edits and not based on the amount of time they were logged in. Edit4Peace (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BusterD (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you did any investigation toward my edits? It’s clear I am here to create an encyclopedia. I’ve been unfairly targeted by Wikipedia users. I gave examples over and over again of the rifts I disrupted, bot overall it’s the deletion of my contributions that I wanted to discuss.

After joining the Hulk Hogan talk page discussions, user HHH Pedigree took issue with my comments about other editors’ contributions. Soon afterward, he deleted all of the content I had added to two unrelated wrestling pages.

I believe this was retaliatory, excessive, and not in good faith, seemingly aimed at provoking an edit war. He gave minimal edit summaries and stopped engaging with me entirely. They also never explained why all of my edits across multiple pages were removed in the same hour.

Rather than restore the content and risk escalating things, I opened a discussion on an administrative noticeboard to resolve the issue peacefully.

Unfortunately, the discussion became one-sided. Another user, Ringfan23, followed the same pattern, removing all of my contributions from the Virgil (wrestler) page and labeling me a “problem user” in the edit summary, again without prior discussion. These mass deletions seem retaliatory and targeted. I’ve responded respectfully, answered every question, and provided reliable sources to support my content. My replies were detailed and in good faith. This seemed to only frustrate these two users further. I’ve also observed edits that appear intended to cast Hulk Hogan in a negative light, possibly in bad faith, but I acknowledge that proving intent is difficult. What I can show is a pattern of retaliatory bulk deletions, a refusal to engage collaboratively, and behavior seemingly intended to push me into violating policy.↵My concern is not about content disputes regarding Hulk Hogan. I understand editorial disagreements happen.

What I am objecting to is the mass deletion of my edits, many of which were properly sourced, across multiple unrelated pages. These were removed without sufficient explanation or discussion. I’m asking for a fair opportunity to contribute. Please ask HHH Pedigree and Ringerfan23 to stop blanket deleting my work across multiple pages. I welcome revisions and constructive feedback, especially since I’m still learning formatting and editing guidelines. But removing all of my work without review is not constructive and undermines Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit. I’ve spent considerable time researching and contributing to these pages.

It’s unreasonable to believe that all of my content was invalid. I’m seeking a fair path forward, not conflict. ↵Thank you for your time and consideration.

HHH Pedigree NWA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history

HHH Pedigree WCW: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WCW_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history

Ringerfan23 Virgil: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_(wrestler)

Ringer fan 23 Hogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_Hogan&action=history Edit4Peace (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I spent a half hour reading every single edit you've made, along with all the discussions on talk. You make a common mistake of new contributors: you seem to think our sort of discussion is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Instead, it's about finding consensus in disagreement. Your statement above makes it clear you 1) can't see your part in this and 2) refuse to assume good faith in disagreement. It never occurred to you that you made ANY errors. You've had a fair opportunity and wasted it. Another sysop may come by and unblock you, but after my research today I feel comfortable in this administrative action. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not neutral party after reading this spot and clearly a bad administrator, especially since you have come forward with no specific examples and bring about a bad reputation for Wikipedia. You can’t just simply say “I don’t agree” in the face of the many facts I have provided. What has happened to Hulk Hogan’s page is a black eye to Wikipedia and retaliation I have faced without moderation (except for blocking me from defending myself further) is a double black eye. You should be ashamed of your behavior as an administrator today. Edit4Peace (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do the other getaway with not finding consensus in disagreement? It seems like a two way street. You also through your words have not engaged with neutrality and given very little reason behind your decisions. I assume you know the uses involved to have nothing complimentary to say about my edits, my attempts to resolve the situation, and the road blocks I went through… particularly sense I did not start any personal attacks but I received them. Shame on you! Edit4Peace (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And after the above I removed talk page privs. BusterD (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal request to remove block

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).

Edit4Peace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The claim that I joined Wikipedia with no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia is both false and poorly researched. I have made numerous well-researched, properly cited edits across multiple Wikipedia pages. This can be easily verified with a simple review of my edit history. After joining the Hulk Hogan talk page discussions, user HHH Pedigree took issue with my comments about other editors’ contributions. Soon afterward, he deleted all of the content I had added to two unrelated wrestling pages. I believe this was retaliatory, excessive, and not in good faith, seemingly aimed at provoking an edit war. He gave minimal edit summaries and stopped engaging with me entirely. They also never explained why all of my edits across multiple pages were removed in the same hour. Rather than restore the content and risk escalating things, I opened a discussion on an administrative noticeboard to resolve the issue peacefully. Unfortunately, the discussion became one-sided. Another user, Ringfan23, followed the same pattern, removing all of my contributions from the Virgil (wrestler) page and labeling me a “problem user” in the edit summary, again without prior discussion. These mass deletions seem retaliatory and targeted. I’ve responded respectfully, answered every question, and provided reliable sources to support my content. My replies were detailed and in good faith. This seemed to only frustrate these two users further. I’ve also observed edits that appear intended to cast Hulk Hogan in a negative light, possibly in bad faith, but I acknowledge that proving intent is difficult. What I can show is a pattern of retaliatory bulk deletions, a refusal to engage collaboratively, and behavior seemingly intended to push me into violating policy.My concern is not about content disputes regarding Hulk Hogan. I understand editorial disagreements happen. What I am objecting to is the mass deletion of my edits, many of which were properly sourced, across multiple unrelated pages. These were removed without sufficient explanation or discussion. I’m asking for a fair opportunity to contribute. Please ask HHH Pedigree and Ringerfan23 to stop blanket deleting my work across multiple pages. I welcome revisions and constructive feedback, especially since I’m still learning formatting and editing guidelines. But removing all of my work without review is not constructive and undermines Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit. I’ve spent considerable time researching and contributing to these pages. It’s unreasonable to believe that all of my content was invalid. I’m seeking a fair path forward, not conflict. I engaged with the uses on their talk page and admin page, and it unfairly resulted in personal attacks. I hope a neutral part will take a few minutes to respond and research my edits, to see the content I’ve added was well research and written. That I stopped edited after HHH Pedigree and Ringerfan23 began excessively deleting any of my contributions making editing hopeless. Now I am wrongly being blocked and punished after facing personal attacks for three days, with no admin moderation. Have the same users who behaved so badly been also blocked or were they defended for their bad intentions?

Thank you for your time and consideration. Below is linked of the edit war these users tried to engage with me.

HHH Pedigree NWA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history HHH Pedigree WCW: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WCW_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history Ringerfan23 Virgil: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_(wrestler) Ringerfan 23 Hogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_Hogan&action=history

Edit4Peace (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Before making another unblock appeal, I strongly recommend you read the above-linked guide to appealing unblocks, take some time, and reflect on the possibility that you might not understand what happened here as well as you think you do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 18 August 2025 (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.

Edit4Peace (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]