User talk:Celjski Grad

On 13 August 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Véronique Trillet-Lenoir, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revision history at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents can be used to understand who and why sections get deleted. it was archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. The reason this happened was that archiving instructions are to archive sections when the most recent post is 3 days old.^[1] So unless someone makes a new post in that section, it will get archived next time the archiving bot processes that page.

A consequence of this is that a good way for an editor to deal with a complaint about him/herself at WP:ANI is to ignore it. Often when editors respond to complaints about themselves they engage in the same kind of behaviour that caused the complaint. So they make it worse for themselves, and this encourages other editors to join the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the explanation. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe you had an edit conflict here while you attempted copyediting. I'm sorry to have completely undo your edit because it also undid other contributor's changes. Perhaps you could try the paragraph-based edit conflict beta feature. It enables you to resolve edit conflict issues without overriding and undoing other's contributions. Simply go to your preferences settings, under Beta features and check the box for the tool. Cheers. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dora the Axe-plorer It's strange — I am using the paragraph-based beta feature and when I committed the change it alerted to a conflict, but didn't show the typical side-by-side conflict view — in fact it didn't show that there was any conflict at all. So to be safe I cancelled out completely and made the changes again since there weren't many. If that overwrote someone else's edit then I think there may be a bug in the new editor. Sorry for the hassle and thanks for catching it. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the edit -- definitely a bug, I only made a small change to the lede. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange indeed. Thanks for re-doing your changes again. Cheers Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually could it be cuz you're editing with visual edit mode? I've never used the feature with the visual editor so haven't encountered such issue with the source editor. Perhaps I may be wrong. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was (and usually do, unless I really need to see markup code) Celjski Grad (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celjski Grad. Your username implies a connection with Celje Castle, which goes against the rules of this project (specifically WP:PROMONAME). I suggest you use another name, e.g. 'Celje nobleman' (not 'Count of Celje') or something entirely different. Feel welcome to propose the rename at Wikipedia:Changing username. I will get back to you after a week or so to check on this. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you for your understanding and stay well. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Celjski Grad is neither a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event. In fact it is not even an English word. It is not an email addresses, or URL. It is not a person's name, nor does it give the impression of administrative permissions. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Although 'Celjski Grad' does not fit into the above categories, it references a well-known castle. As such, it gives the impression of promotional intent and suggests an official connection with the building. It does not meet the criterion which states that "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they are promotional in nature, or appear intended to advertise, promote, sell, gain support, or increase the attention or user-base audience of any person, company, market, product, channel, website, or other good or service" and are not allowed to "imply that the account has explicit ownership of any articles, content, or topic areas, or any kind of "power" or "authority" over other editors". For this reason, I suggest you again to choose some other name that follows the said policy. Otherwise, I will take the case further to WP:RFC/NAME to get further input. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above categories I listed the entirety of WP:PROMONAME, which you specifically referenced as grounds for your complaint. Correlating the use of the name of an obscure 700-year-old castle ruin to some sort of promotional or deceptive intent is specious, and I urge you to find other issues on Wikipedia that need attention so that we both can focus on building an encyclopedia. A quick glance shows at least ten administrators whose names would not pass your interpretation of promotion or deceit, so this take is not supported by your peers. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just some obscure castle; actually it is a very popular castle around here. I have time and will ask other active people for their opinion. If they agree with you, you can keep your current name. I look forward to getting some Himalayas and Towers of London working around here. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Celjski Grad. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. TadejM ^{my talk} 22:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the discussion is archived. But for what it's worth, I don't think there is an issue with the user name. Yes, if the edits were primarily based on Slovenian towns and historic places, then an argument can be made that the name is fully intended for promotional purposes. But, as it is "grad" means town/city, as you know -- and "Celjski" as a descriptor probably only means something to people in Slovenia. Being that the username is being used on the English version of wiki, I don't see an issue. Slacker13 (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you and the rationale that TadejM certainly attempted to be tilting at windmills quite vociferously for a minute there, and am glad to learn Celjski Grad was left to maintain their username. I question your read of 'grad' however as a reference to town/city. As it stands apart from Celjski, and is capitalized, is it not more likely that it is to be read as the user is claiming to be a graduate, or veteran, of whatever it is that Celjski represents?

Regardless, the whole thing strikes me as quite arcane. Oh well, the inner workings of modern encyclopedia construction, perhaps. Keep well. JoeGrayCanDo (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?! I wouldn't have read it that way, but if it is intended as "grad", meaning graduate, it's a clever play. "Grad", means literally "town" though -- but if it's both, nice! Loving that a single word spurs such discussion. Slacker13 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you added Deadshot to the WP:CCI page. An investigation has been opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Deadshot78, and I'm working through it. I was wondering if you finished cleaning Chandrayaan-3 of all its copyright violations? Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings—

I hadn’t done any cleanup of their Chandrayaan-3 edits at all but I will be happy to over the next few days. Thank you!

Celjski Grad (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Deadshot78 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

Thanks for dealing with the final page! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Celjski Grad (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://gr.euronews.com/2023/10/23/pethane-o-xronis-aidonidis

Born 23 September 1928 oxi 23 December 1928 aged 95 2A02:586:CC37:59C5:5D73:FC88:218D:AB78 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The euronews.com article attributed this date to a Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ampxa) that appears to have copied its biographical information directly from this wikipedia article 7 hours ago, with a DOB of September. The DOB has been listed as December since the article was created in 2011 and has an archived source. As user-generated content on Facebook is listed as unreliable (see WP:RSP I am reverting the change back to December, as the previously-sourced article says. If you can find a reliable source that shows September then please add it. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what is the source for his date of birth ? your contributions are also not constructive. You have deleted large chunk of material.Fostera12 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted nothing. Your edit, deleting 5,000 characters, reverted the previous day's changes, including notice of death, date of death, and copyedits by numerous users, which I reverted. What was your motivation for doing this?

Year of birth is taken from the source in the article. Age 26 in 1967 (birth date 1945 or 1944): https://web.archive.org/web/20110828115449/http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article2375869.ece Celjski Grad (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not edit war over this, but there are plenty of examples of the WHO themselves using both spellings on their website and in their publications. It is not a mis-spelling, it is an alternative spelling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out — please see MOS:IZE. I'm sure that individual people or even employees unintentionally misspell it, but the fact is that the official name is spelled with ize. https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf Celjski Grad (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i understand some articles may not have correct grammar or style, the article Carols by Candlelight should not have a picture of Delta Goodrem as main picture, to single out one performer or individual, all i added with the article on Peter Collingwood was his navel service, i appreciated your assistance in correcting the articles in spelling and errors, but you are getting cranky for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.10.1 (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out, I appreciate you responding. Spelling, grammar, formatting, and MOS issues are mostly non-subjective, while content can always be discussed and debated.

Please reread your Carols by Candlelight edit [2] — it was reverted because of numerous spelling, grammar, and formatting errors, including misspelling the word "Carol".

Similarly, your Peter Collingwood edit [3] was reverted for grammar and spelling errors.

I know you mean well with the edits and overall I think they are for the most part helpful, but these errors are simply causing a lot of extra work for other editors. If you decide to return to contributing after the ANI block, I highly recommend you use the preview function and double-check your edits for these simple types of errors. Otherwise article quality suffers and other editors after you will have to take the time to correct them. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There always seems to be issues in many article's, if not most, as to a person's nationality like i see for example the singer and actor John Waters (actor), Wikipedia according to guidelines i can understand state in the biography lead that it should include where the subject is most notable, in this case Australia, but he was born in London, England, so could also be listed as English-born or English Australian or British Australian or even English-born Australian, there seemingly in articles is no real consensus, if we look at singer's from Australia like John Farnham, or Jimmy Barnes, or Johnny Young, in all of these articles, these articles start with Farnham is an English-born Australian or Barnes is A Scottish-born Australian, Johnny Young is a Dutch-born Australian singer and presenter. so it does not apparently have to start with where the person is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.10.1 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They had the same issue with Cliff Richard although a British artist, born in India, it was originally also written as he is Anglo-Indian, or should Tina Turner, have beeen listed as "American", as she was an American performer or even Switzerland, as of the latter she was a Swiss citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.10.1 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONTEXTBIO notes: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident"

and (importantly):

"neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."

While John Waters (actor) was born in England, the article does not establish any notability of England in his life -- in fact it's not mentioned again at all. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the Prague shooting page safe. Good work. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks after the Parkland school shooting on Valentine’s Day in 2018, 638 copycat threats targeted schools nationwide. These threats are often jokes or hoaxes that spread through social media, but they can still be harmful and done.

I don't know if ensuring the name of the shooter is there makes anyone safe Scishare (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that argument, the entire article should be hidden. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celjski Grad. At least one of the edits by Dr. Chance Padberg that you reverted was not vandalism. I understand that user is indeff'd now, but their revert on Money in the Bank ladder match was a good edit. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were rapidly reverting IP editors’ edits at random, so it’s possible that some of their edits were unintentionally good. If you see one that should be un-reverted then please do and sorry for the hassle. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentionally doing a service while being disruptive Always an interesting paradox. No need to apologize :) ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marina Kondratyeva, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes it isn't extended protected, but please read item A and item C of the Remedies section of the page I linked, that's not a requirement: WP:RUSUKR#Remedies.
But, as you've restored it, it's your responsibility now, so my part here is done. – 2804:F1...0D:DFE4 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now, I didn’t read your edit summary carefully—sorry about that. I’ve made some minor copyediting to the addition, I think it should be relatively non-contentious enough to remain. Thanks. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		This is for your work in 2024 Wayanad landslides. Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to improve this article. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can take a look. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		This is for rephrasing copyrighted content in 2024 Wayanad landslides. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of wherewithal from Oxford[4] and Cambridge[5] dictionaries. Therefore adding the column Wherewithal which you reverted citing this in diff[6] അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "wherewithal" does not mean money, contribution, or donation. It is a broad colloquial term to describe the means of accomplishing something, whether it's money, ability, or effort. Both dictionary entries make this clear. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none is saying here that the column of Wherewithal meant those entities are giving 3cr, 1cr so on separately as money, contribution, or donation apart from the houses or projects they are building. The column means the amount calculated by those entities required for the accomplishment of their projects.

money, things or skill that you need in order to be able to do something. They lacked the wherewithal to pay for the repairs. from Oxford and something such as money or a particular quality that is necessary in order to get or achieve something: I'd like to buy a bigger house, but I don't have the wherewithal from Cambridge. Their entries suffice the inclusion of a column for Wherewithal in this context.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume that English is not your first language because I have no other way to explain to you that this word is not a synonym for money or cost within the context you are trying to use it. If you feel this column is vital to the article then call it "cost" or "value" or "worth" or "outlay". There are already entries in this table where the donation's worth is included in the details column. Example: To construct 40 houses worth ₹3 crore (US$360,000)" Celjski Grad (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Celjski Grad,

Please remember to sign all talk page comments as well as those on noticeboards and deletion discussions. I was just going to post a template stating this but I can see you have had enough of those right now. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the AfD discussion, apologies—I missed that and have added it. Celjski Grad (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to improve this article by copyediting and rephrasing close paraphrasing from a sockpuppet. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can take a look. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done...! Celjski Grad (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pachu Kannan (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You also deserve this barnstar. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is citing? I am editing based on opinions of the majority of the people speaking about the players, I am not editing unfairly or without context, I’m just solely respecting what the great players did and the recognition they deserve. Chensteer (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits should be based on reliable, published sources, not original research. Please read WP:RS, specifically WP:REPUTABLE, as well as WP:CS. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chensteer for declarations such as "the greatest" which is a significant claim, multiple highly-reputable sources are needed and the lead should summarize the body, meaning if content is not established in the body with sources it should not be added to the lead. S0091 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I’m sorry for what I did I was trying so hard to add a sources genre them but all of that happened can you help me DPF429 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you trying to add? Your two edits broke the top half of the article so I reverted everything back to clean it up. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On latimes all 85 Prince singles ranked notes I wanna be your lover as post disco and when I add the source that happens DPF429 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you just want to add post disco with the LA Times reference as an additional genre? Celjski Grad (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s sourced not just noted I was trying to add the source just look up all 85 prince singles and go to the I wanna be your lover section you’ll see what I mean DPF429 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it’s still not clear. If you can describe the exact changes you are trying to make I can help. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so in the all 85 prince singles ranked from worst to best the song is number 10 and it is noted as post disco classic DPF429 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made the edit that was intended here (brought here via my user talk page). Tollens (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tollens! Celjski Grad (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for disturbing you for the third time. Can you help to remove WP:RECENTISM and summarise content from August 2024 and September 2024 section of this article. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phule_(film)

Sarosh Asif is lyrics writer of this , he name is mentioned but he don't have page. how to create a page on his name in Wikipedia. I made some changes but you removed that. please help me out. Lucky20444 (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome to create new articles, provided the topic is notable. You can find instructions and first steps here.

Celjski Grad (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your revert on the article "Teip" made in "MAY/01/2025" at "07:54 UTC". You made a reference in the summary to "MOS:OVERLINK".

I acknowledge that I made a mistake as I didn't remember it was overlinking in that case.

About yours reverts on the article "2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout" in "MAY/01/2025" at "07:49 UTC" and "07:51 UTC"..
I acknowledge these people were already linked in the article but the links weren't in the same majors sections of the article if I'm right.
I acknowledge I'm maybe wrong.

See "MOS:DUPLINK" in which we can read "Link a term at most once per major section". If we read the next "footnote".

We can read : "Major sections are generally detailed sections with a level-2 heading, but consensus at an article may determine a lower-level subsection is major, especially when a preceding subsection is especially long, when an article's structure puts most content under level-3 headings with level-2 ones primarily used for thematic grouping, or when a subsection is a link target at which many readers arrive directly."

What do you think ? I suggest to apply what say the guideline and consider major sections are those with a level-2 heading. Therefore , I consider that I can link in this situation.

As I don't want to launch an edit warring. I prefer to explain my opinion and know what is your. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about re-linking in major sections. With regards to both Teip and the blackout articles, both are comparatively tiny articles (well under 10,000 words) and the major sections consist of sometimes one or two sentences. The major section guidance says "at most" once per section and is meant to give a general guideline for large articles where the original link is some number of pages away, not half a page or a few sentences away. In fact, Chechen and Ingush are linked twice in the same sentence in the lead. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the article "2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout" , I think it will expand quickly.

About the article "Teip". I admit that I made a mistake with the word "Chechen" that was corrected by you in "MAY/01/2025" at "11:54 UTC".

But for the word "Ingush". I put a link to "Ingush people" when the other was to "Ingush language".

Therefore , about "Ingush" it wasn't the same link.

Anyway , there was maybe an "Overlink" even if it wasn't the same link.

The "MAY/01/2025" at "13:05 UTC". I put a link to "Chechen language" instead of "Chechens" because in this context. This is about the language.

In the manual of style. We can read "In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: [...]

* Languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)"

Have we to consider "Chechen" and "Ingush" as major languages ? In this case , I think we should remove. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too and felt that no, they aren't major languages or ethnicities and should probably remain linked. But it's not something I feel super strongly about. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your comment. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Celjski Grad, The issue around DMY/MDY dates on Pope Leo XIV's article has been tabled at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I have not discarded the RfC due to controversy about whether or not that is appropriate. As you have been reasonably involved in this issue, this is letting you know that it is requested that you submit a summary of dispute on the DRN entry for this issue.
Thank you for time in the RfC and more broadly on this issue. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the above article, or at least the lead, before you continue to assert incorrect facts. As for "changing the text", the wording used has been in the article through a featured article nomination and much longer than the current language, so the onus is on you here when making the change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comprised means to consist of. Comprised of, or to consist of of is nonsensical. The article enjoyed a dozen copyedit changes, including fixing an incorrect release date and an extra (and misplaced) pronoun after it went FA, so I wouldn't necessarily hold either that or longevity as guarantees of excellence. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So... you're just going to say "they're all wrong, my way or the highway" in response? Ooookay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you completely, but hear me out. That NDTV report source is off initial phase when the incident just occurred, and there were 60 injuries. But according to the Washington Post source cited and several other new reports put of those 60 injured, many people unfortunately lost their lives. So now we have double entries in both sections. So I removed, and added that we need a new report source. Hope you got me. Editking100 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"of those 60 injured, many people unfortunately lost their lives"

Then find a source with accurate figures and add it. Doing your own subtraction WP:OR and telling others to search for sources to back it up is unreasonable and inappropriate. The onus is on you to change cited facts. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, there's no reason to provide up-to-the-minute accuracy. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say this, because on the NDTV source it is mentioned that 5 fatalities occurred on ground with 60 injuries. Then the WaPo report came today that said 28 fatalities in ground. (You can verify it yourself by the time both of the sources were reported yourself, and you'll get what I am saying regd double entries). Hope you got what I am saying Editking100 (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope that you get what I am saying: you can't add uncited facts and tell others to find sources to back it up. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but currently we might be having double entries in both sections. I suggest we remove the injuries section entries until official confirmation by the authorities and then put it up back. We cant have factually incorrect info either. Editking100 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please fix them, with appropriate sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the RAT deploying as "one pilot on YouTube" is highly dismissive and a mischaracterization. While that one pilot made a video, he was also interviewed separately and news stations independently published his assessments. As such, it isn't just one person's opinion, but the news organizations as well. It is inappropriate to simply delete reliably sourced materials and refuse to discuss. You are not the arbiter of the page. Join the discussion at Talk:Air_India_Flight_171#RAT_Ram_Air_Turbine_was_fully_deployed_in_flight. Buffs (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs It was a evolving story back then. I totally agree on the analysis done my multiple experts that the RAT was deployed, and I have no issues if it is put up in the article. Peace Editking100 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your input at the talk page would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this on the talk page and out of unrelated discussions. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Celjski Grad,

I noticed you put a warning on a IP user a few weeks back User talk:2001:268:985A:D360:99DC:3A52:A029:C47E for unconstructive editing. I came across it while reverting some similar vandalism on somewhat related pages. It seems like the IP range is in the same city/location as the one you previously blocked. They might have returned under a new IP here 2001:268:D2E0:D685:0:0:0:0/64. Not sure if it is block evasion or what, but FWIW PhilKnight blocked another IP in the same area doing the exact same thing a few days ago.. User talk:2001:268:738B:C679:60E5:7657:2AC6:95D4 Not sure what the protocol is here, but I thought it would be worth flagging somewhere incase there is something to be acted on! Thanks, Nayyn (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like it could be the same user. PhilKnight blocked the entire 2001:268::/32 range today, so this will include the /64 you mention. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the basis for your decision that this sandbox was spam ? DS (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is an online resume with a self-published primary source used as its sole citation. Other similarly promotional articles tagged with G11 at that time included Draft:Dylan Hynes, Draft:Prakash Bikalpa, Draft:Ashutosh Yadav, and User:Deepak Arya badgujjar, so I chose that category. Is there a better one? Celjski Grad (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that user:HippieLew has been editing for a while prior to that, and seems to have a general idea of what he's doing, I would have left him a note on his user talk, reminding him of the importance of including non-primary sources.

What comes next depends on his response. DS (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I was using this space to draft a page for a notable scientist with the intention of including more sources and information later. Forgive my ignorance, but is there a better place than my personal sandbox to do this? Thanks in advance for redirecting me there. HippieLew (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal sandbox is fine; it was just a false positive on Celjski's heuristics as to what counts as spam. DS (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. Celjski Grad (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Celjski Grad. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celjski Grad, Thanks for your feedback. My main concern isn’t to push any particular claim. I’d just like to help ensure that the article uses a more neutral term instead of “nationality” in this case, which might be misleading or controversial.

Would it be possible to adjust the wording to something more neutral (just describe an group without assigning a nationality or any other solution), even without changing the underlying information? I’d really appreciate your guidance or help in making that change in line with Wikipedia’s policies.

Thanks again, Tosifatosi (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tosifatosi, I've removed the specific mention to Albanian mafia in the article as it's not specifically mentioned in any source, nor explained in the body of the article—it now says simply "the presence of European mafias". If you have information with sources regarding Balkan mafia that you want to include, feel free. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celjski Grad,

Thank you very much for your quick and thoughtful response. I really appreciate you taking the time to review and update the article. Removing the unsourced mention was the right call, and I’m glad the content now reflects what is actually supported by sources. I hope that no vandalism of information occurs and if it does, I hope that the necessary measures are taken as soon as possible.

Thanks again for your help and fairness!

Best regards,

Tosifatosi

(talk) 16:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! Celjski Grad (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a recent edit removed a section that presented an interpretation of “Sing a Song of Sixpence.” I appreciate the need to uphold Wikipedia’s standards on verifiability and avoiding original research.

That said, I wonder if it could be added back in a way that respects policy. This rhyme has generated discussion over time, and I believe readers might benefit from additional perspective. I notice your reply mentioned that the original version of the Rhyme was indeed about Naughty Boys... (This was in reference to Pirates) and 80 was the standard crew size for a large Pirate ship. (hence 80 Naughty Boys).

Would there be support for reintroducing a amended version of that section. Happy to collaborate on finding a version that works! 47.147.227.104 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was "Dubious and unsourced" and said nothing else. Sorry, but "xxx is also thought to yyy" without any attribution or citation is by any measure WP:OR. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask anyone from West Wickham,Shirley or addington what spring park is they’ll look at you confused I am from the area there is no such thing as spring park I don’t know how hard it is to accept it mate it also says if you click on it “Shrublands” so I don’t see your point there no signs for spring park anywhere infact spring park is a park behind West Wickham so your research thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf183 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, there’s literally an article: Spring Park, Croydon Celjski Grad (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a park in West Wickham I have no idea why it says spring park ask anybody from that area it’s called Shrublands estate not spring park Lonewolf183 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the talk page of the Wikipedia article, which has four citations. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your name...sounds Dutch??? In what world is that even an attempt at an insult??? Made me laugh! Joyous! Noise! 17:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was picturing an eight-year-old searching desperately for an adjective, and that’s what they landed on 😂 Celjski Grad (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not great at Wikipedia, the link should be https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jpcu.12544 If you have any advice on how to edit it, it’s been years since my last change 2603:6011:300:4DD9:D4C6:5734:A284:59C1 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding the citation—I’ve cleaned it up a little bit. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the unsourced edits on Gelephu Special Administrative Region. ☆LightMe - Talk 04:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is a web page that i found that include recent photos of the bridge http://photo.china.com.cn/2025-08/26/content_118043626.shtml and sorry for the unsourced edits i made on Gelephu Special Administrative Region 109.81.89.240 (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting Wikipedia and this article from wanton vandalism. I'm grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]