User talk:MichaelJames98

At Brock Lesnar you didn't actually add a source, putting a source in an edit sumamry doesn't justify an edit as it isn't included in the article. Also Stadt67 is right; per WP:ASOF, we are to use the as of template, and not "currently" per WP:CURRENTLY. Though, I do agree the sentence should be re-worded, the template should stay and "currently" shouldn't be used. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

But he also didn’t use a source that he was signed from 2012 or a free agent from 2020 to 2021,the description should be clear and easy that he is currernty signed to wwe

alao why are we even talk about sources? He was in wwe from 2000 to 2004,that’s literally his peak career in his prime,he isn’t a new wwe wrestler

that’s like if someone was hired and released 4 different times ans you have to put that in the description

like Andrade or something MichaelJames98 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand that, but WP:CURRENTLY states: "Where possible, avoid terms such as "now" and "soon" (unless their intended meaning is made apparent), "currently" and "recently" (except on rare occasions where they are not redundant), or phrases such as "in modern times" and "the sixties" (unless their frame of reference was previously made clear)."

No consensus states we have to put everytime a wrestlers is released or rehired we have to update it to show how many times they've left the company, that'd be too much in such little space.

But, I do agree the opening paragraph should be changed. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

he was a free agent in 2025 as well

that’s my point

As of August 2025, he is signed to WWE

how about that?

quoted from the observer:

https://wrestlingnews.co/wwe-news/report-brock-lesnar-free-agent-months-before-wwe-summerslam-return/

Dave Meltzer reported that while Lesnar was being paid on his previous contract long after the company stopped using him on television, that deal eventually expired, leaving him as a free agent for several months. “A correction regarding Brock Lesnar. Lesnar actually just signed a new contract to return,” Meltzer wrote. “He was getting paid on his prior contract long after they stopped using him, but that deal did expire and he actually was a free agent for months until the new deal was signed.” MichaelJames98 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that can be done. I already changed it slightly, but with that, I can do something. Thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I just saw the change,you need to add he was signed in August 2025

because he wasn’t signed since 2022 (that’s still wrong)

he was a free agent for months before 2025 MichaelJames98 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Brock lesnar wrestled in 2021 against Roman Reigns and was all over WWE programming in 2021 MichaelJames98 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you missed that part of what Dave wrote:

‘’but that deal did expire and he actually was a free agent for months until the new deal was signed.’ MichaelJames98 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Good shout, Lemonade. Was thinking the same thing! Stadt67 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Lesnar wasn’t ‘a free agent from 2020 to 2021 only since 2012’

that’s a fact and my argument

and he had a single run from 2000 to 2004 MichaelJames98 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

And he was a free agent for monnths this year MichaelJames98 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Brock Lesnar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. — Czello ^(music) 07:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood

but i’m surprised you left this message on my talk page only and not the other user

he is objectively the one who put objectivly false information,it wa just cut off

1-his universal title reign is the 8th longest not 7th longest

2-his partnership with heyman didn’t start back around MITB 2013 or end in 2020,they were back the following year

3-he won the world title more than 4 times since 2014

4-he said numerous allegations meanwhile,he mentioned one incident that was mentioned on a podcast and she didn’t accuse him of sexual harassment

that part was cut off MichaelJames98 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no whitewashing

there is a section for all of it and it is already mentioned on his page

This supposed to be a summary meanwhile the user added more unnecessary content that’s already mentioned in his professional wrestling career section

not another pro wrestler on wikipedia has it like this

saying stuff like he won the world title 4 more times and his title reign was the 7th longest which was wrong without sources is mind boggling MichaelJames98 (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

By the way

the user @Frippinator on his twitter account that shows how he actually is and his clear bias

he retweeted his tweet on his twitter account

https://x.com/maidenengland96/status/2026252956601864360?s=46

you can see it on his profile

And now he reverted the edit back more than 4 times to the wrong edit

it is objectively wrong especially his title reign

https://www.espn.com/wwe/story/_/id/39788010/who-most-wwe-world-titles-longest-reigns MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

For the record, that isn't Frippinator's X account. His actual account is linked on his user page. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 08:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

He retweeted that tweet

i have a screenshot of it and you can look up it with all of the tweets he retweets

it is insane and some of it is vulgar MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

And it shows his clear bias and shows his opinion and hatred of a lot of people in the Wrestling industry including Lesnar

there are tons of them MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Just scroll down a little bit

it was 6 days ago MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

He accused Austin Theory of being a pedophille

https://x.com/prayeddanny/status/1886473514892337301?s=46

he is one of those people

i rest my case MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

He is still ruining the page and made the same false edit for 6 times now

his title reign is the 8th longest in wwe history not the 7th longest for the million times

https://www.espn.com/wwe/story/_/id/39788010/who-most-wwe-world-titles-longest-reigns

the sportster and times of india websites aren’t real sources

they quote stuff without details

Some of their articles are written by a bot

he had a problem with wwe when he left in 2004

the article in his source doesn’t mention anything about his struggles in NJPW

Where is the numerous allegations in his article? Where is that mentioned im Randy Orton or john cena pages like he mentioned? Both of them had small rumors about them by male wrestlers like Alex Riley,that doesn’t mean we should put that on their wikipedia pages MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I was tagged here.

Both edits that I had made that conjured up my bringing in were fixed. My personal beliefs on wrestlers do not trump in bias in what I do on Wikipedia. To think that way is not only slanderous, but it's also directly violative of Wikipedia's policies. You have been very tribalistic and protectionist regarding Lesnar's page. Changes can be made no matter who it is, and no matter what; the importance of certain figures can not be underestimated, and thus, what must be added as clear beginner information must be added. This extends to controversies, such as those relating to sexual, physical or mental-focused crimes.

Just because I called Austin Theory something, or agreed with something on Brock Lesnar, or any other type of thing that has been said no matter what, does not mean that I have been biased against them when it comes to encyclopedic editing. I can edit on the page of Adolf Hitler and call him a terrible person at the same time on my Twitter, does not mean that I have a bias by default.

Please continue to learn about what there is to do on Wikipedia and how to properly not only edit articles, but to know the guidelines and rules set forth by the site itself. I wish you the best. Frippinator (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You keep mentioning it was the 7th longest title reign in wwe history which is wrong

you called Austin Theory a pedophile

comparing Austin Theory,John Cena or Brock Lesnar to Hitler to justify your edits and what you say on your twitter account is insane

your hate tweets against wwe wrestlers is insane

you mentioned he has numerous allegations of sexual harrasments,where are those numerous allegations in your article? Why is it right there?

How was this incident with terri runnels even controversial to be put right there? There is a section for this stuff as well? This was barely talked about anywhere in the wrestling world,not even for a little bit,not even for a one second or discussed by anyone and it was never conformed,where does it say she accused him of sexual harassment? there was not a lawsuit or complaint,how was this a controversy? This isn’t like a Janel Grant situation

like even the Randy Orton in his 20’s stuff or austin theory were talked about more

names mentioned in that lawsuits are:

Stephanie Mcmahon

Linda Mcmahon

Triple H

Nick Khan

Michael Hayes

he isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

here are the longest title reigns

https://www.espn.com/wwe/story/_/id/39788010/who-most-wwe-world-titles-longest-reigns MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

What a user says on their personal twitter account doesn't have any bearing here. — Czello ^(music) 08:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That’s not true,If a user who has a twitter account here and he tweets a tweet like ‘i will ruin or mess up his wikipedia page’ and we know it is him

this is 100% should be looked at as bias and bad intention which should lead to a ban

not just twitter,any social media or message board account that could be verified it is the same person.

if he says ‘i hate him’ this should be taken into account as well

literally in any legal situation,if you are a witness and say you hate the defendant

like what happened with The Wrestler Nailz and Vince Mcmahon in the steroid trial,they dismissed him because he said he hated him

but don’t focus on what this example

I will say it again,if a Twitter user puts on a tweet or alluded to ruining wrestlers pages on wikipedia in his tweets

this should be looked at 100%

he is one of those people

calling a wrestler who isn’t a known pedo a pedophille should tell you everything MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Has he said he's committed to ruining his Wikipedia page? If not, WP:AGF applies. — Czello ^(music) 08:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If a twitter account has at least 100 tweets or retweets that are negative towards a pro wrestler,how should i assume good faith? Becsuse i csn put all of them here

Especially when the edits are wrong or about small gossip that were never confirmed and was never a controversy?

he called a wrestler (austin theory) that appears weekly on tv a pedophille when literally not any other person in the world refere to him as such MichaelJames98 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We take their edits as they are, we don't make assumptions about their motivations. Plenty of people are able to write neutrally on topics they personally disagree with. — Czello ^(music) 09:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Plenty of people are able to write neutrally on topics they personally disagree with."

Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better, even when it is this simple. As stated before, personal disagreements or dislike of certain individuals does not trump neutral points of view and overall bias.

I believe Austin Theory is pedophilic because of his personal swing with a minor on the independent circuit before he was signed to WWE. The only reason why it has not been featured in an article in a way that it is said he DID is that it does not have the necessary legal requirements to call it fact; what I exemplify in that is called opinion. Opinion is not inherently fact, and facts are not inherently opinionated. Frippinator (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This message is very closely walking on a line between "statement of opinion" and "oversightable libel". You're probably aware of this but I should point it out to avoid later surprises. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MichaelJames98 reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 09:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how is there edit warring by me when he did more edits than me? And he was the one who put wrong information that i pointed at and needed to be corrected immediately?

how did you not do the same to The user @Frippinator

he is literally the one who did the edit warring MichaelJames98 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Frippinator, as I can see, has not violated WP:3RR. You continued edit warring after a warning. — Czello ^(music) 09:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

he made two edits after your warning,i only made one

this doesn’t look good MichaelJames98 (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, as far as I can see, he hasn't gone past 3 reverts total. You have. See WP:3RR — Czello ^(music) 09:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

He did 4 total MichaelJames98 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm counting one initial edit and then 3 reverts. At the limit, but not over. Either way, which ever mod gets to the report will see it and decide. — Czello ^(music) 09:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I also wanted to let you know I removed your report at WP:EWN as it was too malformed to serve any purpose. You copied and pasted my report and retained links (including YOUR edits and warnings against YOU), as well as duplicating some information. Please don't make a retaliartory report, it's considered bad practice. Just reply to the existing one. — Czello ^(music) 10:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Insead of doing that,why don’t you help me and correct the replies instead of removing it? Because i actually want to file a report against him

he made more edits than me,this is factual MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

How about we have a civil discussion on this talk page regarding the topic and just remove the report that you just did and i will do the same?

i don’t know why you like to do this and hurt other users

i’m not doing any more edits until we come to resolution,i’m willing to have a discussion

and i will delete my report as well MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)