User talk:Czello/Archive 1

this "vandalism" was a result of a very boring Science teacher, who sent me and a few of my "vandal" friends to the library so we could work on study guides. she does that. anyway, what i said was all true. i appreciate your suggestion with the "sandbox" thing. that was nice of you. kind of. another thing: are you a direct relation to Dawkins? or just a supporter? so yeah... message me back and we'll debate. about creation vs. evolution, i mean. sounds like fun, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanso671 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not give you the warning because I am a supporter of Dawkins (although I am, that is irrelevant), I did it because of the vandalism. Even if you had vandalised the creationist article, I would have reverted the edits and made the same action - not because I believe in one thing or the other but because I am trying to help maintain Wikipedia. Please do not vandalise article in future just because you do not like the subject matter (or for any reason, for that matter). Czello BB 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does this mean we can't debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanso671 (talk • Oh, I get it. You're pretending you don't want to talk to me. Very funny, Czello. We're still friends, right? contribs) 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not waste the time. Czello BB 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander

Implying that the writers of the show were using a racist term towards the President based on one poster is a rather weak position.

Quanticles (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm; in hindsight, you are probably right - I think it was a rather rushed edit on my behalf. Apologies. Czello BB 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. I hadn't noticed the problem. Cheers, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Czello BB 01:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordor (band)

It appears you used Twinkle to start a deletion discussion for Mordor (band); however, it appears Twinkle goofed and the AfD discussion page was not started. You may want to start it manually. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't notice that - thanks for the update! Czello BB 21:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It appears you have an interest in the VHEMT Article.

Would you be willing to discuss (User Talk Page - my talk) editing changes with me?

You preferred the "Manual of Style" (guideline) for use of spaces. NOTE: I inadvertently used the word "vandalism" regarding your edit (spaces) due to using Copy & Paste on a different Article. Please accept my apology. :-)

In turn, I prefer the current (13:25 / 3 November 2009) opening statement (3 main sentences) because:

---highlights primary information about VHEMT

---draws reader attention to the first four (4) References

---easy to comprehend (read)

What are your thoughts?

Skyeking (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; no problem about the 'vandalism' bit, I'm sure I've done similar stuff in the past. Personally, I preferred the layout as one paragraph, as I believed - in my humble opinion - it looked neater; however, I do not believe there is any form of MoS regarding it, so I won't raise any problems with how it looks now. That said, my main concern was just with the spacing - but I see you have left it as one space between paragraphs, which suits me just fine. Czello BB 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. Just wanted to say thanks for your recent work on the Cradle pages. It's a LONG time since anyone made a helpful contribution. Do more! :D Cheers, Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope to be a lot more help in the future :) Czello BB 12:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I like bureaucratic discussions] Well, if something can be listened by A-N-Y-O-N-E it is in the PUBLIC domain no? There is no copyright because I simply rempembered the lyrics and wrote them. I didn't take it from a site.--46.246.166.248 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics themselves are copyrighted, though, regardless of where you found them -- or indeed, remembering them. However, the more important aspect is that we simply don't need the lyrics on the article -- it isn't exactly all that encyclopaedic. As the WP page states, "any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of the style." There isn't exactly an encyclopaedic point being made by the lyrics there; for an example of what I mean, see the Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) article. Under the "Musical composition and lyrical interpretation" section, it states one line from the song and the significance of this line (and why it's important). In short, lyrics should only really be put up when we're trying to make a point about them or a particular thing; there just isn't really much need for them to be there for the sake of being there, I'm afraid. Thank you for your edits, however (and thank you for discussing this further with me), and I hope you continue editing here on Wikipedia. Czello BB 21:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Giti Vaziri Tabar is a famous musician in Iran and it's really crucial to translate her page to English. (her Persian page is also available in Wikipedia</ref>http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/گیتی_وزیری‌تبار</ref>).Aliha.kasra (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the decision to speedy delete it or not isn't up to me -- it's up to an admin. If you leave your case on the talk page of the article, then they'll read it there. Thanks, Czello BB 23:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just declined your speedy deletion request of Sekuwa. Speedy deletion is only allowed in very specific circumstances, which you can read about at WP:CSD. Simply lacking citations or being of questionable notability is not a valid speedy deletion rationale. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please use WP:PROD or WP:AfD, but be sure to check to make a good faith check on your own for sources that could be used to improve the article rather than deleting it (WP:BEFORE). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, apologies if I misused a speedy tag! – Czello BB 12:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I challenged your speedy tag at Khowai Government Higher Secondery School, since the A7 criterion you used has a specific exception for educational institutions. But with a few exceptions you seem to be doing more correct tags than incorrect ones, so don't be disheartened. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice! I'll try to be a little more conservative in where I nominate articles for speedy deletion in future :). – Czello BB 23:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks for following through on the prod. The speedies are always appreciated, just every now and then there might be something worth giving them a chance and a valid article may be worth keeping. Thanks for the hard work and best regards ^Khukri 22:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post on my talk page, hope it answers your question, give me a a shout if not. Regards ^Khukri 22:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Daniel McCarthy (podiatrist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. →Στc. 00:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello, I believe you tagged an article I created for Speedy Annihilation (Inali-Wakan) - after reading Wiki's guides on "writing good articles", I understand the G11, because I included a link to my site for non-Wiki peeps to contact me. I'm as new as they get in Wiki-World (I just joined this weekend), so I'm still getting the hang of this community. After many requests made to me to put definitions online of words no one can find (except in history books), I started to (Inali-Wakan is one, Scraling is one, etc.) - but now that I understand this Wiki-World a little better, I agree that there is probably no need for articles on ancient Scandinavian or Native American words. Moving forward, I have a few quick questions...

Can you or someone there delete that first Inali-Wakan article from my discussion page? Do User Pages (profile or whatever we call it here), HAVE to be written in third person? (It seemed weird that I was putting "Scott refurbishes stereo zoom microscopes, studies history, blah-blah...", instead of "I refurbish stereo zoom microscopes, study history, blah-blah...") Last question is: can a non-Wiki-member contact/question someone who has contributed, added to, created, etc. articles? (or do they have to be a member?) ~ Thanks in advance for your help... ~ Peace, ScottyHeadbanger (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Scott. Firstly, you can remove the things on your talk page yourself if you so desire. Although we try to encourage people to archive the past discussions on your talk page, no one will mind you removing the three notices I placed on your talk page, so you can go ahead and do that. Secondly, you can write however you wish on your own talk page! You can have a short biography of yourself if you wish (in which case you're free to write in either first person or third), or no details at all. For example, my user page just has a couple of userboxes and the featured picture of the day. here are some details about your userpage and how you should use it. If you're a little unsure about what's accepted and what isn't, scroll down to the "What may I not have in my user pages?" section, which will list a few details for you. And finally, anyone who does not create an account can edit as an IP, and this includes contacting other members. IPs can leave messages on your talk page in the same way you left this message on my talk page. They cannot send you emails, however (and registered users can only send you emails if you allow them to in your 'My preferences' section). I hope this has been of some help to you, Scott, and welcome to the Wiki! Please do not hesitate to message me back if you need any extra help; although you may find WP:WELCOME even more useful. :) – Czello BB 21:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the fast response! I'm all over this new info like a bum on a bologna sandwich! Looks like I have some Wiki-Homework to do - thanks for all of your info (helpful, two thumbs up, etc.). Have a good night... ~ Peace, ScottyHeadbanger (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope you have an enjoyable time on Wikipedia! – Czello BB 15:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would susgst not forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand that term. Can you elaborate? – Czello BB 12:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takng cases to more then one venue. to achive the result you want. This may not be the intention (and its not just you. But wwe now have (a spurious) SPI, and the Wikiqueste notice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken the case to more than one venue. I realise I did mention possibly taking it to AN/I in the future, but that was because of a seeming lack of interest in the Wikiquette post. I can assure you was not trying to forum shop (at least, not intentionally). It seems there has been a revelation on this issue, however. – Czello BB 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir /Madam, The National Front are currently taking legal action against all business'/individuals that they are informed of publishing false information, about themselves/members. Any non-members accused of being a member without actual evidence is slander and liable to legal action being taken, as such with the Baby P incident involving Jason Owen being stated as an NF member without evidence provided.

(NB: It is interesting to find the NF admitting that for anyone to be named as a member of its own organisation amounts to defamation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.188.246 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This particular case is being taken up by Ms Bernadette Jagger on behalf of the National front against multiple national newspapers in the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you wish to enter into further dispute with your sources of information from newspapers, please forward your contact details to:

<redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.201.148 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please see WP:LEGAL. Legal threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Secondly, there is no mention of Jason Owen on the National Front article. Finally, any mention of him will not claim that he is a member of the National Front, just that he has been alleged to be a member. – Czello BB 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a legal threat, it is only to stat that the article you refer to in the newspaper does say he is a member, a claim that has not been backed with evidence from them thus a claim currently being made against them to retract all mention of such from their articles.

As such your suggestion that they are more believable is alas to be brought into question, when they are having legal action brought against them, using them as a source is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.201.148 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which newspaper article says that he is a member? Although, it is irrelevant anyway as that means that the legal claim should be brought against the newspaper itself, not us. All of the sources that we use in our articles aim to be reliable sources. Even if one particular newspaper makes a claim that the NF disagree with, that does not make that source automatically unreliable. – Czello BB 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you say on this page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnes_(album) ---> Genres aren't capitalised ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steephaaniiee (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our manual of style on music dictates that genres aren't capitalised (as they're not proper nouns). Although the first word of a sentence (in the case of the infobox on the Nocturnes page, the "electropop" genre) is capitalised, every other genre in the same sentence would not have a capital first letter. – Czello BB 20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleted my edits ??? I worked hard... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steephaaniiee (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as appreciated as it is, we don't need a section for both singles and music videos. In this case, it's far easier to just mention those things in the opening lines. Don't worry, the content of your edits is still in the article, it's just been moved to the intro rather than the bottom. – Czello BB 21:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Air) qualifies for speedy deletion. It could use some additional work, and certainly linking to other pages would be useful. However, speedy deletion is (as far as I know) usually used when a page has outright unimportant material, such as a person writing an article about their father, when there is little or no actual relevance in an outside way, to any industry or larger community. Clearly the only college radio chart and countdown show in existence during any span of time has, at the very least, importance to the industry. The nomination states that it could be deleted at any time by someone other than the creator who plans to improve the article. However, I don't want to do that without understanding what needs to be improved upon first. I'm not sure precisely what you find to be so lacking. While it could use some interlinking, the article istself seems to state the importance of the chart and its show fairly clearly to me. What do you feel needs to be added or further explained? MXVN (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't believe that the article establishes the notability of College Air, nor any proof of it being remarkable. The radio show's mere existence doesn't immediately warrant its own article. Ultimately, however, the decision is left down to wiser and more experienced editors than I, and so if I am mistaken in this, then they will choose to keep the article. – Czello BB 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of College Air, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is not about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, so it doesn't qualify under A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You unintentionally created your sandbox in WP:MAINSPACE. You can cerate your sandbox and other user sub pages by adding '/ ' after your name like this: User talk:Czello/Sandbox (click the red link), and the name you want to give to your new sub page.

Sorry, I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. Do you mean me redirecting this article to the userpage of the editor who created it? If so, it's because the page seemed to be him inadvertently creating his user page in the wrong place. – Czello BB 01:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry... I meant to leave this on his talk page...I don't know how I messed this up. Touch Of Light (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all make mistakes! :) – Czello BB 01:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Vince Adamson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Czello! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are someone needs to do something about user Mpho18[1] on the Sonya Blade page[2]99.174.181.113 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Any reason why neither you (IP) nor Czello actually tried explaining any of this to Mpho18 on xyr talk page? Unless this is some sort of long term problem (like a socking user) that I'm unaware, it's not actually surprising that Mpho18 keeps re-adding the same info, because no one explained what was wrong, outside of edit summaries (which many new users don't even know exists). I'm going to leave a note on Mpho18's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually in the process of leaving a message on the user's talk page, but have been a bit preoccupied with other things. I had left several edit summaries explaining my reversions; but, as you say, (s)he may not have seen it. – Czello BB 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You supported my prod on Descendants of Wolfgang von Graben. You might like to know that it was contested so I've taken the article to AfD. Cheers, andy (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. – Czello BB 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking of adding an image myself, and you beat me to it because i dont know how link an image from Wikimedia Commons that has the same name as a file on Wikipedia. I had to download the image, rename it, shrink it, and upload it, all because someone uploaded File:Gort.jpg years ago (useless image). I will test out my image, File:Gortray.jpg right now, but that doesnt mean im disrespecting you. If you prefer yours, put it back in and i wont revert, but lets try to get discussion going on the talk page. here goes...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; no offence will be taken. I saw that you added the first image and then removed it, so I took the opportunity to see how Asimov on his throne would look. – Czello BB 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"old gimmicks of a national crisis with fast-paced scenes of man talking importantly about stupid things."

"Sic—generally inside square brackets, [sic], and occasionally parentheses, (sic)—when added just after a quote or reprinted text, indicates the passage appears exactly as in the original source.The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription—that they are reproduced exactly from the original writer or printer."

I do not feel the need to elaborate further. Please refrain from contacting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.74.174 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you because you seem to know what you are doing and have dealt with User:69.65.74.174 in the past and that i am new to Wikipedia. He has left a post on my talk page that i fond offensive and i don't know what to do. please help, Thanks TheRico152 (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his message to you was meant for me (he posted a similar one on my page, also). As he made no personal attack against you, it's probably best to just remove his message from your page and ignore him: he's already been given a warning for what he said to me on his page. – Czello BB 13:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if I am "edit warring" then so are you. I change something, you change it back, I change something, you change it back. I can't have a "war" without another participant. Also I'm not attacking you you just seem very quick to defend a vile group of people. Finally I am certain it is not appropriate for the so called "victim" of my non existant attacks to be the one who "warns" me about it. Impartial, I think not!. So please stop EDIT WARRING yourself! Dear me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.229.229 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding unsourced and controversial claims to a page, and I am reverting until a consensus has been achieved. That's not edit warring, that's trying to maintain consensus. Calling me a member of the EDL, and saying that I have received "training" from them is quite an accusation -- you're accusing me of being Islamophobic and part of the far-right. And yes, it is appropriate for me to warn you about it -- that is how the system works on Wikipedia. – Czello BB 02:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are denying that a racist organisation which protests the very existence of mosques is racist? As far as I'm concerned it is a no brainer. Although I'm sorry for over reacting, I'm sure you're not a member of the EDL you just obviously don't have an awareness of how vile they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.229.229 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of how vile they can be, but that's irrelevant -- not to mention an opinion. I'm not denying their racism, I'm saying that, despite the opinions of people like you and I, we need to add reliable sources that verify claims that would be considered controversial -- that's just how it works here on Wikipedia. Also, as a note, despite you not agreeing with the warnings I placed on your page, please remember that they still stand. You are free to remove them from your page, but we have a sort of "three strikes" rule when it comes to banning people. Future warnings will be placed on top of your previous ones, despite your removal of them. You should be aware that the warnings may be hidden, but they're not gone. – Czello BB 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to undo your edit without discussing it with you first, but I'm not sure the 9/11 conspiracy theories link belongs in the See Also section now, as it has been integreated into the article itself, and WP:SEEALSO says that the section "should not repeat links which appear in the article's body". This wikilink wasn't present in the article's body when the RfC took place, so I think that actually having it in the article supercedes the RfC, which didn't address the possibility of the link being in the article. With this in mind, would you object to me removing the link from the See Also section? - SudoGhost 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is in the Talk Page archives (#57). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware that its presence in the main body meant that it could be removed from the See Also section. Although the revert has already been made by a different user, I thank you for bringing this to my attention. – Czello BB 20:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree, sorry for the mistake. :) --AttoRenato (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, thanks for your help and fast reply. – Czello BB 11:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you constantly removing Kane? He's in the very source that's on the page (not to mention he was announced last night)--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't in the source that was provided next to the match-up. However, I went ahead and found and added the correct source, and updated the match listing with it. – Czello BB 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edit about Walsall Arboretum?

It was unsourced. Please provide a reliable source backing up your edits. Thanks. – Czello BB 19:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing text contains a number of unsubstantiated facts, but they remain. Regardless, I happen to live next to and often walk in the Arboretum. I think that makes me a good source. Also my information may be useful to potential visitors. If I understand the 'reliable sources' criteria correctly, somebody could cite a newspaper article by a person who had never been to the Arboretum and that would be acceptable. This is very off-putting for someone like me who makes a first small effort to contribute with an innocuous but potential useful fact only to have a gatekeeper reject it because first hand experience is not acceptable. Look, I don't really mind; I will put my time and effort into something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebyatt (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel like that, but yes, those are the rules. Unfortunately, saying "I've seen it" isn't a good source. Please read the above link for more info. As for saying that there's other information, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks. – Czello BB 17:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czello. You're more up on Wiki-rules than me, so maybe you can answer this. Just been on a trawl for references and I've found track-by-track commentaries on Nymphetamine and Thornography. Was thinking of adding them to their respective pages - probably in shortened versions - but is that sort of heavy block quoting frowned on? I'm thinking it would look like the PiL album pages - The Flowers of Romance (album) for example - but I've not seen that done anywhere else. Not going to bother if someone's just going to delete them again. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure on the exact rules for this. It could be worth asking at an appropriate Wikiproject, possibly WP:ALBUM. Alternatively, if you can find a good article or featured article that does something similar, I'd say that gives you a green light for these sorts of quotes. – Czello BB 17:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well that article leads me to the album articles style guide, the final rule of which is to ignore all the rules! I like that. I can live with that. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Federal Signal 508 to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. GB fan 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czello. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man! Stop deleting the things I edit. First of all see the differences between the "article for this" and what I've done. There are plenty of differences, in fact the "article for this" have a lot of mistakes I will correct (if you don't undo later). It took me 7 long hours to do some research to some homo erectus to come and remove it.

Firstly, please don't call me 'homo erectus'. I've considered it a personal attack, and have given you a warning for it. Secondly, we don't need this excessive information on the main page. There are so many former members that it needs only be on the one page. We only need current members on the main page. If you feel the band members article is incorrect, fix it. – Czello BB 20:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there. Which discussion is it? If it is the "nationalistic disruption" discussion, I am already aware (though am not actually involved with the issue itself). Thanks for letting me know, either way! – Czello BB 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this user, who has been blocked before for genre warring on a different ip address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.64.173.242 keeps changing genres, please keep an eye on him I call the big one bitey (talk) October 10, 2012 19:42 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the heads up. – Czello BB 20:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude. What on earth have you done? I can't even figure it out. All the history has gone and it's up for speedy deletion! Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've really messed it up (this is what you get from editing too early in the morning). Basically, someone moved the article to Vempire again. I went to move it back, but accidentally moved it to V empire, rather than V Empire. Either way, it's irrelevant because it can't be moved back to V Empire without the redirect being speedily deleted. So, once it's deleted, I'll move it back to V Empire, redirect both V empire and Vempire to it, and request that it be move-locked so we don't have to do this again. Unfortunately, I've made a real pig's ear of it all... but I think I have it right now. – Czello BB 09:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I see! I was trying to follow the trail but I got lost! To be honest, while we're here, this might be a good opportunity to change the title anyway, because it shouldn't actually have the brackets. The CD booklet (and the spine) has "V Empire or Dark Faerytales in Phallustein". Shall we go with that? I didn't realise you could request a move lock. That's a good idea. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, it might indeed be better to go without the brackets. Does The Gospel of Filth use the brackets? Afterall, we're going off that for the overall title. If so, I'll go ahead and make the change, make the appropriate redirects, and then request a move lock. And yeah, I'm not surprised it was difficult to follow. Today I've completely failed on WP:CIR, it seems! – Czello BB 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no brackets in The Gospel of Filth either, so I think we can call that "official". I don't even know what WP:CIR is, so you're doing better than me! I'll click the link and learn something... Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this makes things much easier. I'll clean it up now. Cheers! – Czello BB 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have another quick, pedantic point. Should the "O" in "Or" be capitalised? Normally convention says that it shouldn't. Thoughts? – Czello BB 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shouldn't be - it isn't on the sleeve or in TGOF. Small O for 'or', small I for 'in'. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll get on this now (apologies for the typo). – Czello BB 11:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We now have move protection! – Czello BB 21:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent edits to the Bishop Ahr Wikipedia page:

While I appreciate that you had changed the title from "Incident" to "Controversy" - I still submit to you that this line (and especially with it's own header) has no place in an article that is simply about the institution/building.

The incident in question is related to an individual, and since the event was not notable in the formational history of the school it is biased and unfair to include it as its own header.

I also submit that other local institutions have had similar articles removed by the same token. A precedent has been established, and while it is unfortunate, it would be more appropriate on a "list of NJ sexual offenses" or some list seperate from an institutional page. Jcullinan (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. The first point I'll say is that I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, so I won't take up this issue to vehemently. I reverted the section back mostly because I felt its removal was unjustified. However, as I said, I won't vehemently defend that position, should you disagree with me. Instead, however, I feel it ought to be discussed. There are relevant discussions open both on the article's talk page and on the AN/I link which was posted on your talk page. However, as a second point, I'd say that it could be argued (not necessarily by me, but by those who placed it there in the first place) that the incident is notable. I haven't looked enough into it to decide myself if it is notable (my revert was more of a knee-jerk reaction, truth be told). Finally, I'd say that a precedent on other articles doesn't affect how this article should be edited; please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more info. – Czello BB 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't worry about listing the other bands, but please leave Alice And Chains off doom metal list. I mean come on man. They are grunge with a light metal influence. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.7.57 (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were a band I left on the doom metal page. They are on wikipedia, and even have doom listed as a genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.7.57 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid with both of these bands we have to leave it as it is. With Alice in Chains, though we many not consider them doom, we have to go by what the reliable sources say; see WP:RS and WP:V for more info. The same goes for Acid Witch; even if their article calls them doom, we need a citation to include them in this list. Thanks for getting back to me! – Czello BB 10:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How may I get one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.7.57 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically -- with music -- magazines, books, and (certain) websites will do. You have to be very careful with websites, though -- there are a huge number that aren't considered reliable because they're edited by its users (such as the Metal Archives, or even Wikipedia itself). However, the people over at the heavy metal Wikiproject will be able to help you out far more than I could. They may well have a list of websites that they typically use, and will be able to give you advice as to which sites are accepted and which aren't. Click the link I just provided, then click on the talk page at the top, and start a discussion regarding what you'd like to do and ask them where you might find good resources to use (and if you ever find a citation that you're unsure about, you could always run it past them first). These guys will know best what advice to give you. – Czello BB 11:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added The fall of every season once more with a site I believe to be reliable, as I seen others mentioned with the same site. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclip13ticaL (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Hope you enjoy your time here at Wikipedia! – Czello BB 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am back again... I just wanted to say that there is no link activated to go to see that Alice In Chains is sludge or doom. I believe it ought to be removed til proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclip13ticaL (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point. Go ahead and remove it. Also, just as a quick side note, you can sign your name after posting something on a talk page by typing four tildes -- ~~~~ -- after your message. At the moment the automated bot is signing them all for you. I get the feeling that your talk page might get spammed by an angry bot at some point ;) – Czello BB 12:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am kind of new to "talk". Plus I didn't get into adding or editing to wiki until now.--Eclip13ticaL (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your revert on the transistor page. I felt it was counter-constructive.

The next time you touch my edits, do it after you get my permission.

Amanbir Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.145.234 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I do not need your permission to revert your edits -- take the issue to the talk page. Your edits have been contested by three editors now. Please do not edit war (or evade your ban). – Czello BB 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need all the permission in the world, cause you do not know what you do. You can have the entirety of Wiki editors with you, does that make you in any way, right, or, correct. Sir, stand down, I know what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.109.185 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Take the issue to the talk page, and please see WP:EW in the mean time. We can discuss this without an edit war. Remember, just because you think you are right, that doesn't mean you are; we operate on consensus here. – Czello BB 14:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what, now you won't discuss the matter. i've put something on the talk page, no reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.109.185 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here. Really, the issue at stake here is your edit. Your (admittedly good faith) edit needs to be taken up with User:Materialscientist as he is the one who originally contested your edit. – Czello BB 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Phidippus borealis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: {{db-animal}} is only for individual animals, like a pet. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was under the impression that it was individual animal species. My mistake -- thanks for letting me know! – Czello BB 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2012_(2nd_nomination)

The arguments for deleting the article are many, as expressed by the large majority of people who have voted to delete it. I understand it's not a simple majority rule. But there are so many reasons given for deleting the article by so many people, that one can only conclude personal relationships behind the scenes are keeping the article from deletion. Please wrap up the process and delete the article. 98.214.33.57 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs normally are allowed to run for seven full days, unless there is a clear consensus in one favour or another. There may be more reasons why it should be deleted than shouldn't, but so far there are still a lot of people making convincing keep arguments. There's no need to rush it: we'll have a consensus by the 28th. I very much doubt that there are personal relationships behind the scenes influencing things; it's just typical rules to let it run for a week. – Czello BB 06:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am ref to Alcohol_(novel) article. I have made few corrections in the script in order to meet your requirement. In the meantime we will be putting more references, Since the work is under review with various media agencies, this will take some more time. Thanks Maju — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majucr (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination)? I voted delete for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libertarian_Party_UK (no brackets) which is the same organisation and it was deleted in January 2011. However I see from Libertarian Party (UK) revision history that you in November 2011, you "moved United Kingdom Libertarian Party to Libertarian Party (UK): The official party name is 'Libertarian Party'. The '(UK)' is the correct disambiguation." Your comments on the AFD would be appreciated. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, JRPG. I've already seen the AfD, but I've yet to make a decision. For the time being, I've decided to abstain from voicing an opinion as I think both sides have valid points. If I conclude on one side or another, I'll be sure to post on the AfD. – Czello BB 19:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Czello. JRPG (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to reply; I don’t know if you have it on your watchlist, so I thought I’d drop you a line. --217/83 22:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the "other stuff" is a featured article of a man who only wrestled 12 years, not 28 like Morales did, I think that it is relevant. This article is 79k bytes long, which translates to less than 3k bytes per year, Punk's is 12k bytes per year. Sammartino's article is woefully underdeveloped and it still reaches nearly 50k, the reason being that covering an entire career takes a lot more prose than a few years. Punk's also enters all sort of kaybabe details, while Morales generally only skirmishes over his feuds and only goes into more detail in his notable wins like The Destroyer, Hogan, Fair and so on. Based on the fact that the Wrestling's proyect's flagship is both much much longer and detailed, I will remove the tag again. If it is readded, I will take it there for discussion. El Alternativo (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a "good article" being larger is Dwayne Johnson at 93k bytes. That makes up for a ratio of 11,000 bytes per year given the fact that his full time career was from 1995 to 2003, eight years, and even removing the small hollywood section, it would still be more overly detailed than Morales, yet a untagged "good" article. What about Triple H? He does have a simmilar ratio to that of The Rock (standing at 7,000 even counting his limited participation as a wrestler during the last years) and it doesn't even have a section covering his acting career in detail, nor a tag. Nevermind that a huge portion of Morales' 79ks is in the text of the references. El Alternativo (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll concede the point. – Czello BB 18:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we have an understanding then. For future reference, note that the last 20 (or so) WWE Champions going back at least 15 years, meaning Randy Orton, Edge, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Dave Batista, Austin, Rock, HHH, Sheamus, Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, Big Show, Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker, Kane (wrestler), The Miz, Mick Foley, Alberto Del Rio, Rob Van Dam, Eddie Guerrero, John Cena, Jeff Hardy and John Layfield have yet to reach 28 years as active wrestlers, but have similar sized or larger articles. Several of them are "good" articles despite clearly coming in at over 100k bytes. Also, all of the Hall of Fame inductees in that list and virtually all of the Triple Crown Champions (with the sole exception of JBL, who has several years of his career covered in another article discussing the Acolytes Protection Agency, which is 50k bytes by itself) have articles that surpass 90k bytes. This is clearly not a random example of "other stuff existing" (which BTW is nothing more than an essay, not even a guideline and definitely not a policy, used to un-justify the inclusion of non-notable articles and such), it's the format that has been adopted by the wrestling project in terms of broadness. El Alternativo (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. You have new messages at Talk:TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2012).
Message added 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That additional information section I put was sourced. Didn't you see the 6 at the end of that section? The only part of that section that wasn't sourced was Kollias' drumming. Everything else I got from the new sources I put up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleBassLover (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Metal Archives are not considered a reliable source, as it can be edited by anyone (much like Wikipedia). Please see WP:RS for more info. – Czello BB 08:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the review from Metal-archives, if you haven't already done so. Everything else is sourced, I may have not done it correctly, but it is sourced. All the additional information, I got from the other new sources Der unaussprechliche (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the sources for the other things that were under "additional information". Out of all the things placed in the "additional info" section, there was only one source (as all the info came from the Metal Archives). – Czello BB 09:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate having to deal with you people on these fucking obscure death metal pages. Worried about references on a page that gets very little activity. I see thousands of pages with totally unsourced shit. Go to those pages and edit the hell out of everything. Why did you delete the other sources besides metal-archives? "The next track is undoubtedly one of the most ominous and creepy tracks this reviewer has EVER heard. This track I am speaking of is called Spawn of Uamenti. It comprises of a low tuned French horn, and mp3 clips of reptiles. Very creepy, very ominous, very awesome." The instrument that is in Spawn of Uamenti is a low-tuned French horn. That's not opinionated and/or unsourced, therefore it's going up on the page. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/44515/Nile-Annihilation-of-the-Wicked/ Der unaussprechliche (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you to please remain civil when communicating with other editors. Your attitude is not helpful, and could earn a ban if you continue. There is no reason that we can't discuss this politely. We should still be concerned about references, regardless of traffic. Also, please add your citation to the French Horn claim. – Czello BB 09:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, I would recommend you check out the discussion on the Those Whom the Gods Detest talk page. Feel free to give input at that discussion space, if you want to. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check that out now. – Czello BB 07:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mortal Kombat II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DX and MB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is your problem with that censorship, but the way you reject my objection to the content, that's just another censorship done by you. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, where everyone can create, edit and delete everything. You are just a pathetic censorship addicted. Ah, by the way, this article does not make a sense at all. I just need to do what I should do as this encyclopedia is free for everyone, but perhaps, not for any '. There you go, I've told you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanamr (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You removed controversial content without a reason. That is censorship. I haven't censored anything: you're free to raise your objections to the content on the talk page, if you so wish. You are free to edit as you choose, but that doesn't mean all of your edits will be accepted. – Czello BB 13:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the Rumble match listing as Punk vs Rock.

With no scheduled title defenses between now and the Rumble, it's smooth sailing.

Now that the TLC match with Ryback is out the window, the only way for Punk to lose the title is for him to be stripped between now and the Rumble.

While technically it could happen, so too can the Rock being hit by a bus before the Rumble.

As we sit today, Punk is WWE Champion with no scheduled defenses on the docket until the Rumble, and Rock has the Rumble title shot. Therefore if the match were to happen today it would be Punk vs Rock.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 19:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it on the article talk page. – Czello BB 19:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a compromise...Let's let TLC pass. Once it does, THEN we can go ahead and list Punk vs Rock since that's the next PPV up. Although it IS academic since Punk isn't wrestling at TLC. Simple equation: Rock's guarenteed Rumble title shot + Punk being WWE Champion with no more PPVs until the Rumble = Punk vs Rock at the Royal Rumble. Vjmlhds 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do that, either, for the reasons Dcheagle listed on the article talk page (which is where we should resume this conversation). – Czello BB 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted all his edits. Should we block the page and referenced files or should we block his account indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkmartin (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection. Hopefully an admin will lock the page until this dies down. – Czello BB 10:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi Czello, regarding neurosis - you said "saying that the source is their music is considered an interpretation, and thus, your original research". nothing i wrote, except "Arguably the most significant stylistic leap..." ('arguably' being subjective, i guess) can be considered an interpretation, they are facts - neurosis DID introduce instruments such as a flute, they DID increase the average song length, steve von till DID use 'clean' singing on Lost, etc. etc. you merely have to look at the albums individual articles for this information, for example they display the guest musicians and the song lengths. so i have no idea why my useful information was removed. the article for neurosis is pitiful, it needed much needed improvement which i provided. thanks, jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtaylor477 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there are most certainly facts in there, such as song length and instruments, the parts I consider to be original research are the parts in between. When you mention their change in genres, how they have become progressive, how songs have "apocalyptic, claustrophobic atmospheres", when you say they have "epic scale and ambition", saying that an album is a mixture of two previous ones, or saying it "has embraced newer sonic elements and ideas", etc. These are things which may seem evident to you, but are still either your interpretation or your opinion. – Czello BB 16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i take your point. i just thought it would be better than nothing, even if it wasn't sourced then it would at least give viewers a better insight into the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtaylor477 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can really, really appreciate that -- and I don't mean to trample all over your edits. I've seen that a lot of your other edits have been fantastic, so please don't be disheartened! Everyone, myself included, tended to not fully appreciate WP:OR when they first joined Wikipedia. Once we understand and realise why it's so important, though, it really helps the wiki. As I said, everything else you did to the article has been great :) – Czello BB 16:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is the wrong way about communication with a user, as i am new to Wikipedia and this has been my first edit, of which i have othere information i wish to add to numerous articles. In regards to The edit that i posted on the WWE '13 page, i would like to enquire if there is a compromise to this issue of haveing my edit removed. Numorous articles of a similar nature of this kind of information on there pages, which has been deemed as relevent and i wandered why this one does not. If any product has been reported as damaged and/or broken, surely that is information relevant to people performing reaserch I do acknowledge that that forum posts are unreliable tho and have already found a replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCreep (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intended this really to be discussed at Talk:WWE '13, but it'll do here :) many other articles contain a lot of information, but that doesn't mean that it creates a standard for other such things to be added to other articles. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for more info on this. The only bugs which I think should be included are the truly ground breaking ones, such as the Corrupted Blood incident. All games have little bugs that need to have patches to sort them out, and in WWE '13's case, this really just isn't that notable. The bugs will be fixed and will be forgotten about; there do not seem to be any three party sources that display that these bugs are all that notable. A lot of people may indeed complain on the game's forums, but forums are not considered a reliable source. In short, I think it's best to leave any mention of the bugs out of the article until they become notable enough to be included. – Czello BB 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, you left a message for me stating that you deleted my insertion of a sentence or two about Uriah Heep because it constituted new or original research. I beg to differ and hopefully I can convince you why this is not the case. If I can it would be appreciated if you would undelete what I wrote. First, Uriah Heep was one of the major heavy metal bands of the early 1970s. This is not only a historical fact, but it has been entered by another editor for the entry for Uriah Heep and remains there unchallenged. Logically it means this band was influential, perhaps not as much as Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple or Black Sabbath, who were the other three members of the "Big Four," but influential in their own right nonetheless. It is not by accident that when Ozzy Osbourne formed Blizzard of Oz that two former members of Uriah Heep were brought in. Second, it is self-evident that three of their most significant early albums, "Demons and Wizards," "The Magician's Birthday," and "Return to Fantasy," involved "sword and sorcery" imagery. It is not only evident in the titles (which I included in my entry) but in the songs and lyrics. No additional resource is necessary because it is so obvious (if the imagery is in the album titles how much more obvious can one get?). Thirdly, the two sentences I added were in response to the claim that Ronnie James Dio was the first one to combine heavy metal, operatic singing and medieval imagery, which, he was not. The chronology proves this ("Demons and Wizards" came out three years before Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow's first album). Finally, I used inline references to the articles on Uriah Heep and the three albums I mentioned, and those ALREADY ACCEPTED entries written by others verify what I said to not only be accurate, but not new and/or original research. If the same information is already in other Wikipedia articles, then how could what I wrote be original?

I will not get into some sort of editing war with you or anyone else. What I wrote is accurate and not new or original. It should be allowed to remain in the article for Power Metal because it is factually and beyond dispute to be true. If Wikipedia is about sharing the truth then what I wrote should stand. As an aside, I am an amateur musicologist and have been studying music history for over thirty years. It is not my primary area of interest, but I do know of which I write. Not all books (very few books, in fact) are comprehensive or entirely accurate. Because another editor used one book as a source does not mean that source is correct or comprehensive. In this case, Ronnie James Dio was definitely influential to the power metal genre, but so were others. Led Zeppelin, for example, used imagery from "Lord of the Rings" and other cites in this literature in several of their songs, such as "Ramble On" and "Stairway To Heaven," even earlier than Uriah Heep did, but Led Zeppelin did not have the operatic singing of David Byron (Uriah Heep's singer), and neither of Led Zeppelin's songs were heavy metal. I hope you can see my reasoning, but if do not I will not debate the point any further. It is not the most pressing thing in life, but realize that the article will be less complete -- and less accurate -- than it otherwise could be.RickW7x2 (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting into touch with me, Rick. Firstly, I'd like to point you to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one article says/has something, that doesn't mean other should also. The exception to this is, of course, reliable sources. I removed your information because it didn't have reliable sources or citations that backed up the claims -- if these other articles do have the appropriate sources (and please note that they have to outright state the thing you are writing, not merely imply it), then please readd the info with those sources cited in the text. Your second point, however, does consist of outright original research. Regardless of how "self-evident" something is, it's still your interpretation that these sorts of lyrics and images mean the band was a precursor to power metal. Remember, unless a source actually, clearly states this, we cannot include it. – Czello BB 12:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, all I can say is "Wow." The information doesn't require an interpretation of the lyrics. The proof is in the album titles. I am not aware of a specific book on power metal to provide supporting quotes, but here are two cites from internet sources that support what I am saying: http://www.last.fm/user/sidar/journal/2006/06/27/waf_uriah_heep_and_power_metal%3F http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/uriah_heep/demons_and_wizards/index.html Both of these sites are respected, but they are not published (printed) literature. They also verify that what I wrote is NOT original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickW7x2 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does require an interpretation. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe that these album titles and lyrics are power metal: the way Wikipedia operates is on third party reliable sources. Consequently, neither of those two sources count as they are both user reviews. Please see WP:RS for more information on what constitutes a reliable source. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) – Czello BB 20:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the question: "how is the reference to testicles relevant"? (non verbatim) I think that the reference to women fancying testicles, by appearing in the show three times makes it relevant per se. I put it in the "Cultural references" section because it is a bit of a cultural stereotype (true or not).--Gciriani (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the cultural references section has to have a reliable source that demonstrates that the reference is notable. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that this is a cultural stereotype... – Czello BB 20:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think it would be more appropriate to mention it somewhere else, for instance in the plot?--Gciriani (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's relevant to mention at all. It's an unremarkable plot point (unless you can find a reliable source that demonstrates that it's significant somehow). – Czello BB 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reverse your undo of mine and other editors edits. Other editors have actually read the sources, you sir clearly have not! I am slightly confused as to what you claim is unsourced, everything that is said has been sourced, other editors have corrected my grammar but they have clearly read all 5 of my sources! Yes, I am including the sources from the paragraph above! You have gone against multiple editors in reverting this edit. Please belay your reversion! Fair enough if you had a question, you were right to bring it up on the talk page but to simply leave a comment and then delete something against multiple other editors is an act of vandalism! Undo this please!sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer this on the article talk page: there's no need to start a second discussion. – Czello BB 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed the clock image with the edit summary of "one logo seems enough here" - I assumed your revert of it was accidental, as you only mentioned the previous user's edit. Fair enough if you think it should stay, although we should caption it as being an actual BAS logo rather than giving no context and implying it's just somebody's anonymous drawing of a clock. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My revert actually was accidental, but when I saw that you removed it, I wasn't sure why. My mistake! I think you're probably right about it not needing to be there twice. If you want to remove it again, please go right ahead. I won't defend its inclusion if you feel it's best to do away with it :) – Czello BB 13:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said in your message to me that i am editing genres on the album "Laika Come Home" without a source, but the source is right there on the album page. It says, and i quote "[The album] contains most of the songs from the Gorillaz' first album, Gorillaz, but remixed in dub and reggae style." but the only genre listed for this album was Dub which is quite misleading, so i added Reggae to the list so people know that it is a Dub/Reggae album, not just a Dub album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwallace05 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that that claim isn't sourced, either. Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation. – Czello BB 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why wasn't that information deleted when mine was? Anyway, are these ok sources? http://www.last.fm/music/Gorillaz/Laika+Come+Home https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=gorillaz+laika+come+home&oq=gorillaz+laika+come+home&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.951.3502.0.3626.24.11.0.9.9.0.532.3547.3-1j6j1.8.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.HISXkHGqwWU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.d2k&fp=e9fe9caeb27ca466&biw=1092&bih=533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwallace05 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete that extra sentence, go right ahead. Last FM isn't considered a reliable source. The second link appeared to just be a Google search. – Czello BB 19:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It said you were deleting it so I got pissed, and I thought you were a computer. Sorry for the (rather uncivil) message i sent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wullysaurus (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing Ukip from the UK 2013 local elections please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.29.234 (talk • contribs)

Nope. This has been discussed time and time before. Not gonna happen. — Czello BB 17:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nk we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% they are going win today more then 1 council, maybe 10 or more81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to debate this, take it to the article's talk page. — Czello BB 18:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

already did81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would let you know that I've re-opened a discusion that you've previously been part of at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#3rd_party_lead:_OR_concerns. Bondegezou (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on sock-puppetry. Bondegezou (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was recently browsing the Elimination Chamber (2012) page and noticed it had been vandalized. I checked the person who edited it and you had warned this person multiple times about vandalizing. The person's page is User_talk:176.27.135.59. I would really appreciate if you would look into it. OneInfo (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I reverted the vandalism, but an admin has already blocked him. He won't be bothering anyone for a while. – Czello BB 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your help with the article North Korea's cult of personality. Coinmanj (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no need to thank me. I might be doing more at some point in the future if I can find a few more reliable sources. – Czello BB 08:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello.I'm SMS1371.you leave me message containing "Hello, I'm Czello. An edit that you recently made to Satanism that seemed to be a test has recently been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. 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. – Czello 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)" I want to say you I'm not mistaking.please go to this address : http://www.exposingsatanism.org/signsymbols.htm Horny hand is one of symboles of satanism and this address is one from hundreds.Also you can see (if you search) majority of top-ranking persons like George W. Bush, obama, klinton, Jimmy Carter, ......... at least one time fellow this symbole to protect this Sect(satanism). if you want you can search(i propose you to see this address "https://www.google.com/search?q=satanic+symbols+bush&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=T2EyUa25HYrT0QX654HADw&ved=0CDMQsAQ"). I want you to return my change to be shown.thank you.(if you want you can use pictures in that address instead of my picture,I mean "http://www.exposingsatanism.org/images/symbols/satanicsalute2.jpg"or "http://www.exposingsatanism.org/images/symbols/hornedhand.jpg") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sms1371 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit seemed to try to add a picture of Rob Zombie, which seemed irrelevant to the article, and so I determined it to be a test. – Czello BB 19:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason im changing the fact on ufc champions is cause it wrong, so it simple im gonna change it everytime i see it there, it is in no way vandalism like some cunt think. They editor is wrong and im correcting his faults. Jose aldo promoted to undisputed champion?! he might be semi retarded. No one have ever been promoted in the ufc. and thats why i am deleting that text only and nothing else, so call it vandalism if you will, But if you do you might be more incompetent then i thought. sry for the bas enhlish, not my native toungue. Feel free to ban me cause i will change those facts until the day i die or the original editor realizes that hes wrong.

Take it to the talk page instead of edit warring. – Czello BB 15:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You made an edit recently regarding whether the Green Party of England and Wales are "centre-left". I've just started a discussion about whether they are or not due to the numerous recent edits adding and removing this from the article. I'm letting you know about the discussion in case you want to get involved.

—me_and 10:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I'll check it out. – Czello BB 12:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why delete the image of the episode. Hypocrite the person who delete the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.99.226 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czello; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stating what I've spent years having to explain ad nauseam on the South Park articles to unregisted IPs. I've often been a lone voice in trying to explain Wikipedia policy to these people; I hope this is an indication that you plan on sticking around the SP articles; they could certainly use you. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I'm actually a moderately regular editor of the SP articles — I always find myself hunting down original research and unsourced "cultural references". But yes, I'll always be prowling the articles (I think I have every episode on my watchlist). Cheers! – Czello BB 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking up for me. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added source for the influence of Uriah Heep on power metal bands: The Power Metal band Narnia did a cover of a Uriah Heep song "Sunrise" in their CD "Decade of Confession": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade_of_Confession. That is evidence of influence that requires no additional interpretation.RickW7x2 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where you've added this source anywhere. However, that is not evidence, you're still making interpretations. Perhaps you should read WP:OR and WP:V. You must provide a citation which overtly states what you're claiming — not draw conclusions like that. – Czello BB 18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see where I've added this source because I didn't add it. So are you telling me that evidence only consists of an author writing about it in a book? The fact that an artist actually covers music from the group I cited isn't evidence? RickW7x2 (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book or any other reliable source, yes. They may have covered the song — that much self-evident — but that's not proof that they're an influence on the genre (or even the band). – Czello BB 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted two edits made by Glemmens1940 on my talk page and hid them. I was away from the computer and missed them. Can you explain what the content was? Feel free to email me if you don't feel comfortable talking about it on-wiki.--Auric talk 16:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I should be okay to explain. Glemmens had spam posted the same information on a bunch of people's talk pages (including yours), his talk page (twice), his sandbox page, the cyberbullying article, and even created a whole new article just to post it. The information was about cyberbullying on Wikipedia. Amongst the details he listed every editor whom he believed to be a cyberbully (your name was amongst it) and outed another user by posting his real name. Fortunately, he's been indeffed and it should all now be safely revdel'd. – Czello BB 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is rather disturbing, since I actually helped clean up the article significantly and !voted to keep on the AfD.--Auric talk 19:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp

Rule #11

Exception: Use apostrophes with capital letters and numbers when the meaning would be unclear otherwise.

Examples: Please dot your i's.

You don't mean is.

Ted couldn't distinguish between his 6's and 0's.

You need to use the apostrophe to indicate the plural of zero or it will look like the word Os. To be consistent within a sentence, you would also use the apostrophe to indicate the plural of 6's.

The text in the Anthrax article says:

Below is the media text with the highlighted A's and T's:

Highlighted As is confusing. Highlighted A's should NOT be confusing.

From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369_2.html?sid=ST2010021904257

The bioterrorist darkened the letters "A" and "T" in certain words in a manner that, when the A's and T's are looked at together, appears to spell out chains of nucleic acids, the building blocks of DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdLake (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lake — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdLake (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Czello.I hasn't see your comments. You must be asking why I am deleting gothic metal on the content or templates. But I will answer for you what I am deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.153.7 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you deleting it? – Czello BB 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!! Sorry Czello.to remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as i did to Gothic metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucchesi LG (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I was only trying to put the term right on thegothic metal in the content and the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucchesi LG (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that I had to log in, so I deleted somethings in the page gothic metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucchesi LG (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings in that page I don't agree. It is just this I am deleting it. So, one more time, apologize me, and answer me. Now I must go out. Hugs and bye. I promise I am going to come back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucchesi LG (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Firstly, when you're editing, you should use the edit summary (that white bar below the main edit box) to explain why you're changing something. However, because genres are such a contentious issue, you should discuss it on an article's talk page before making the edit so that everyone can debate if you edit is the right decision. Thanks. – Czello BB 06:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you give the same message to Rrius. Let me tell you that non-candidacy in the Labour leadership was very important. I have looked at the other references, such as 2005 Tory election and US Presidential elections and the precendence is the same. There is a very strong case for having images on the basis that non-candidates were extremely important to the contest.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you read the talk page. As I said there, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so it's utterly irrelevant what other articles do. Besides, we operate on consensus, not on your view how the article should be. Stop edit warring and take it to the talk page (as Rrius has done — he's returning the article to a version that actually has consensus). – Czello BB 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, will you apologise for bullying? Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where editors feel respected. Secondly, as someone who actually understands the internal workings of the Labour Party, these non-candidates are very influential? Are you going to deny that. As for, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it does not mean that my point is utterly irrelevant, it just means that it is not a priority but there is still a valid argument to be made. The reason why prospective US Presidential candidates (who are non-candidates) have pictures and are mentioned is because they are infleuntial to the race. The same with the 2005 Tory leadership election. For eg. if Yvette Cooper stood instead of Ed Balls, the leadership would be different. Many were calling for experienced grey-beards to throw their hat in the ring. Jon Cruddas was extremely influential in the race. I urge you to think again, rather than bullying me. Perhaps YOU do not have infinite knowledge and are in need to a bit more humility.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't, as I have not 'bullied' you at any point. Secondly, it doesn't matter how important you think this should be. Wikipedia works through WP:CONSENSUS. This is why you must debate it on the article talk page. You do not yet have consensus, so we stick with the article version that does — which is what Rrius is reverting to. Please see WP:OWN: it's the community who decides how this article should look, not you. – Czello BB 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation did support my claim, so you are wrong.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to copy and paste the exact text that supports your claim, then? – Czello BB 10:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her failure to rule out standing in a future leadership contest. Perhaps you could actually read the text, if YOU want to make changes then YOU should put it on the talkpage, rather than delete a piece of the article. Then again, I wonder why you are on this site rather than at work.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opening text that says a challenge cannot be ruled out is in reference to David Miliband, not Ruth. – Czello BB 10:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It is mentioning Ruth Kelly as a candidate in a future leadership contest. She was being supportive of David Miliband, but did not rule herself out of a leadership race.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you unable to copy and paste the exact text where it says that? – Czello BB 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the ANI that Czello has raised with regards to this. I've read the article in question 4 times and in no way can "Ruth Kelly has lauded David Miliband as a "star of the future" and said a challenge to Gordon Brown's leadership cannot be ruled out" be interpreted as saying that Ruth Kelly is touting herself as a possible candidate. AngieWattsFan, your continued edit warring is only going to get you blocked. Each time you boldly make an edit, which is then reverted the burden is on you not the reverter to open a discussion on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought AngieWattsFan would know better than to engage in edit warring after all the EastEnders-related edit warring they did, which led to their block. Sigh. –anemoneprojectors– 11:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you both for your input. I have made mention of this on the AN/I discussion, just to try to keep everything in one place. AngieWattsFan, now that we've established that the citation does not support your claim, are you willing to undo your edit? I'd rather not do it myself because of 3RR, but I'm willing to wait to see if anyone else does or to do it myself in a few days after there has been no new source provided. – Czello BB 11:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWF has once more added the source without consensus. I am still awaiting his/her input here. — Czello BB 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick point here. Ruth Kelly didn't stand in the 2010 general election, so didn't have a seat in Parliament at the time of the leadership contest. Therefore she wouldn't have been considered a candidate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's something of a grey area and I tend to the old fashioned view that if the verb relates to what a group of individuals do then it's plural, but if it's what the group itself does (note: not "the group themselves") then it's singular. Manuals of style for most publications support this. The Guardian, for example, says:

singular or plural?

Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not "have"). In
subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: "It [not "they"] will press
for an increase in the licence fee."
Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – "England have an uphill task" is
OK, as is "Nirvana were overrated"

Clarity also plays a part - "The Cabinet has decided to...." because the Cabinet is a single organisation that acts as a unit. But, "The Cabinet drank their tea" - since they didn't have just one cup between them!

Whether any of this is of crucially life-shattering or life-enhancing importance I'm not sure, but in the case of the the UKIP article the singular has been used elsewhere so it's consistent. Emeraude (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough; I wasn't 100% myself, so I'm happy to go with your edit. Cheers! — Czello BB 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some anomalies, even with The Guardian's style guide. Pick these apart:

"Tottenham Hotspur have won the FA Cup...."

"Tottenham Hotspur are a football club....."

I suppose it's all part of the beauty of the language. Emeraude (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your edit to UKIP on the capitalisation or not of Euroscepticism. It's another one of those oddities of English. I wouldn't take Wikipedia as the be all and end all of how to spell - after all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source! But the Oxford English Dictionary gives it as Euroscepticism, Euroskepticism. - clearly preferring the capital E, but adds, " Also with lower-case initial." So, take your pick. (Personally, I'd go with the cap.) Emeraude (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would go with the capitalised version. The Wiki article on it threw me a little (though I know it's not a reliable source, I just assumed this was how it was spelt). As I think we both agree the cap is fine, I'll undo my edit unless anyone insists on it being lower-case. — Czello BB 10:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone insists, point them to the OED. That would probably trump all other sources. Emeraude (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment, I honestly think the extra 1% it's not faulty information at all, but most probably, just a "bug" resulting of number rounding calculations. I guess that the real data of the survey is calculated with decimal numbers, with the final results presenting just the rounded numbers without the decimals to simplify (this is something usual for opinion polls). And it's there where that "bug" is found: most probably, for the April 29 survey, the "Other" section (without UKIP) may account for something like 6.49...%, and for the April 30 one, it may be something like 6.51...% as a result of, let's say, Labour being 39.09% instead of 39.11% or something like that (these are just examples of what may be happening). Both of them are pretty close values, yet as a result of number rounding, the first one would end up being shown as 6% and the other one, as 7%. It may be as simple as that. I don't think it's really such a great deal of an error to have that survey removed. Impru20 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czello; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the edit example for Payback just now... Thanks for the vigilance on my idea... I just thought that might look more streamlined for future events :) WikiVigilante2013 (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I been threatened with a ban for a perfectly acceptable and reasoned edit? Please reply in the next hour or I will be forced to continue regardless of your threats.

EDIT: "Take the issue to the talk page instead of edit warring." I have taken the issue to GimliDotNet's talk page however I have been ignored. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talk page, not another user's. That way everyone can see it. As per WP:BRD, once your edit is reverted it's time to discuss it rather than edit warring. — Czello BB 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I have now set forward my reasoning on the article's talk page. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a reoccuring arguement that many wikipedia users seem to be debating, if you look at the Black Sabbath Talk Page people are already discussing it. From my knowlege of Doom Metal, and the amound I listen to, I and confident enough to say that I do believe that Black Sabbath is a Doom Metal song. I don't really think a source of evidence is even needed. If you read about Doom Metal, you can tell that the definition of Doom Metal accurately represents the song Black Sabbath. This is not and urgent change, however I do believe that Black Sabbath is classified as a Doom Metal song, and a Doom Metal band as a whole. Again, I may be wrong, but please regard this. FranktheTank (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I'm aware of the talk page discussions (I've been a part of them for many years). I agree that the song is doom metal; the problem is that, regardless of what either you or I think, we need a citation to prove this. If you can find a reliable source to back up the doom metal claim, please add it – I'd love for it to finally be added to the article with a citation. Until that time, however, Wikipedia policy dictates that we have to leave it as just "heavy metal". — Czello BB 10:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. I understand the situation. Well, I haven't managed to find any reference to say that this song is Doom Metal unfortunately. Except from the Allmusic source which is a little vague. Good luck with it anyway. :) FranktheTank (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For keeping various political talk pages free from being a promotional soap box and being fast on the revert and report button. Mkdwtalk 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I was afraid that I was beginning to appear fanatic and obsessive, but I think this has made it worth it. — Czello BB 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't put as TV miniseries instead of rudely put this craping tag on the artcile? --190.242.99.226 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to the AfD discussion. Also, please do not remove the AfD tag. It will not stop the deletion debate from taking place. — Czello BB 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're mad?. Let me complete this article to this sunday, stop this madness with references, images, etc. Let me complete the article please. --190.242.99.226 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stopping you. The AfD will run for seven days, so you've got a full week to finish your work on the article. However, I'd advise you to take note of why I've nominated it: it's not because of a lack of images, it's because the subject is not notable enough. If you want to stop the article from being deleted, you need to establish its notability. — Czello BB 20:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point :-) Netsurfer123 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, thanks for catching this! Wow, I don't know how that happened. All I did was add in a colon to the wikilink. And, yes, there was an edit conflict when I saved it the first time. Anyway, thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't too sure of what it was, but I've seen those sorts of edit conflicts before. — Czello BB 12:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the content that was removed when I made that one-character edit and it was from 16 threads above the thread I was editing! Haha. I thought perhaps it was the comment just above or just below mine, but it's not even close. Very strange. And you are correct; the two edits happened at the exact same time. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	you got me... Loolcat20 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar's a barnstar – I'll take it, thanks! Yes, I hate Conservapedia too (who doesn't?), but Wikipedia's not the place for it :) — Czello BB 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding information about the UAF, amplifying on what had gone before. Not discussing their far left wing credentials.(Cyberia3 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The content which I removed had nothing to do with improving the article; you were simply discussing your (misinformed) opinions on them being fascist. — Czello BB 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My misinformed opinions as in giving THE definition of fascism and proving that they are fascist by that definition? And hypocrites too? I am sorry if I have upset your far left heroes of the UAF, but you are all fascists, and that is a fact. Fortunately I have my own forum and other forums so that even if you hide the unpalatable truth here, people will see it elsewhere, and the wikipedia will become untrustworthy as some already recognise, because it does censor the truth at times. That is well known on the internet.(Cyberia3 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Fascism has far more to it than simply restricting free speech. Not everyone who restricts free speech is a fascist, and that goes for the UAF (who I am not only not a member of, but I even dislike – so please do not accuse me of showing a bias towards them. The last thing they are is my "heroes"). The reason I deleted your comments, as I've explained before, wasn't because of your accusation of them being fascist, it was because the talk page of an article is there for comments on how to improve the article. You were not doing that, you were soapboxing. If you have any reliable citations that you think prove that they are fascist and could be added to the article, then take it to the talk page. Until that time perhaps you should indeed save your opinions for other forums outside of Wikipedia. — Czello BB 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. BRD is fine, but I've already started a discussion on the talk page: Template talk:Reply to#At sign. It's awaiting your participation. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't see your edit. I've replied there. — Czello BB 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czello. That "Animals in islam" page is clear whitewashing, not even animal sacrifice is mentioned. Looks like you dont want to keep that article OBJECTIVE. My claim is easily sourced, I thought that another wiki article is enough. Please tell me why did you not removed other, quite misleading, parts of that page? Hamnavoe (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to assume good faith in the past, and I'll ask you to do it again now. I'm not concerned with the rest of the article, as it's not one I normally edit, I simply saw your alterations to it. I understand that you thought that another Wikipedia article is enough, but unfortunately it is not. Please read WP:RS for more information: we do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source. Furthermore, one of the things you removed was a reliable source, that being the BBC News article; which makes me think you deleted it because it disagreed with your personal views. This is why I reverted your edits. — Czello BB 08:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What could be more funny to be accused for NOT keeping the GOOD FAITH while editing BY YOU?! :) Moreover, I've added a BBC sources text to the article, which was blocked BY YOU AS WELL. The article about "animals in islam" is NOT OBJECTIVE. It looks rather like a dawah promotional brochure from a mosque. If you are interested in keeping the Wikipedia OBJECTIVE, I suppose you WILL NOT INTERFERE MY WORK IN THE FIELDS I DO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND. I took into an account that citing wikipedia as source is not okay, but you still kept b-tching. Hamnavoe (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is with WP:WEIGHT, to which you are not adhering. I will explain on the article talk page. — Czello BB 12:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have been commented on the Sunn O))) debate and I was wondering if you would also like to comment here at Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2 and get another horrible title changed back. If you have the chance I would appreciate it. STATic message me! 16:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. — Czello BB 17:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]