User talk:Czello/Archive 10

That our wonderful friend is still about. I'd SPI the IP but it's not obvious to anyone who doesn't know the history. We need to keep our eyes open on the usual haunts. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, he sure is bitter about getting caught out, isn’t he? Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep a close eye out. — Czello ^(music) 10:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m here to inform you that the edit you revised was not a “obvious PoV”. I simply added information regarding the obvious Western propaganda and that the page is filled with information that is extremely one-sided and only focuses on Russian propaganda, while failing to address anything about Western propaganda and disinformation. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased place where people can find information and form their own conclusion. Unless you can explain to me how my edits were an “obvious PoV”, I will be adding back my edit within 24 hours. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you against re-adding it. It was unreferenced and seemed to rely solely on your opinion. Use of words like "parrotting" is clear PoV and not neutral. — Czello ^(music) 20:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can explain that your edits were an obvious PoV it is because you didn't list any other championship changes when Czello added "when then champion Brock Lesnar was champion in August 2014" Drward2022 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong conversation, friend – this conversation was about Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine — Czello ^(music) 12:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by I have the wrong conversation? I thought this was about the recent revised edit that I made Drward2022 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thread you've replied to here was one that already existed (if you look at the dates, it's from January). It was about a different topic.

I suggest you start a fresh conversation at Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013) (at the bottom of the talk page), that way it's visible to other users, too. — Czello ^(music) 12:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you failed to provide any logical reasoning as to how it was an “obvious PoV”. The vast majority of the information is in regard to Russian propaganda. That is a fact, not an opinion. The page consists of accusations of Ukrainian genocide, with no reliable, un-biased evidence to suggest it occurred. That is a fact, not an opinion. The page consists of wording that is heavily biased. That is a fact, not an opinion. The page also claims that Russia made false accusations of there being Neo-Nazis within Ukraine, which funny enough, there are NBC articles about Nazisim in Ukraine, but I won’t bother adding those. I’m not the only one who’s concerned over the lack of coverage of Western propaganda on the page. So, unless you can provide a better explanation as to how it was an “obvious PoV”, then my edit will be re-added. If I find that I added something that seems to be purely opinionated, I will remove it, if not, it stays. If you want me to go into explicit detail for all the changes I originally made, don’t be afraid to ask. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is an issue with the reliability of sources you should discuss it on the talk page. The article is not improved by adding unsourced opinion. — Czello ^(music) 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gave a thorough explanation as to how it isn’t an opinion, so, at this point, there’s simply no needing to explain myself if you don’t care to listen. If you need a CNN article to tell you that this page is extremely biased in its wording, representation and sources, you’re not gonna be able to get it. It’s quite obvious that everything I put has a source, just maybe not the source you’re thinking about. It’s pretty obvious and easy to see it with your own eyes. Social media is a great place to use as a source, when it comes to what I had originally edited in. I guess common sense doesn’t exist here. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on reliable sources - see WP:RS and WP:V. If you aren’t going to provide any then your edits will simply be reverted again. — Czello ^(music) 22:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, censoring at its finest for illegitimate purposes. You say Wikipedia uses reliable sources. If so, then you wouldn’t use CNN, BBC or Wall Street Journal for reliable sources, as they are notorious for fabricating certain events, bias reporting, and inputting their own narratives, and are also notorious for making false predictions of certain events. You might as well include RT or Sputnik as reliable sources then, if that’s the definition of Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is censoring you. Requiring the inclusion of sources is a reasonable ask for an encyclopedia. If you have qualms about the sources we do or don't allow, the venue for your frustration is WP:RSN. — Czello ^(music) 22:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and everyone who complains of Western media bias in that page either gets shut down, or ignored. Why? Because this place only supports one opinion, and one side. The problem is, Wikipedia is biased in its encyclopedia and very one-sided, especially to current world events, but no one cares to address it, and neither do you. You might as well re-name the original page, ‘Russian propaganda in the Russian invasion of Ukraine’ because it’s title is extremely misleading, which I’m not the only one who’s complained about that in the talk page. But, to no surprise, the concern the user made was ignored. As I said, if you wanna have the audacity to say CNN is a “reliable source”, you might as well add RT or Sputnik. It’s not a shocker that most people don’t trust Wikipedia anymore, and this is further evidence as to why. Pushing a one-sided narrative, ignoring or silencing others who dare oppose the narrative, and censor other sources that are not left-leaning. No wonder Wikipedia is dying. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, if you wish to discuss the quality of our sources the venue is WP:RSN. Griping to me won't change anything. — Czello ^(music) 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And indeffed! And by the way, if you want to add anything. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he really isn't getting it, is he? — Czello ^(music) 07:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Replacing Current and Currently with As of --Mann Mann (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you reverted my edits, which were all clearly explained in my edit summaries, with a claim of "Unexplained changes/unsourced" Please do not revert useful changes. Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it was accidental – I was reverting the unexplained edits by the new user who edited just before you did. As I was looking at a diff, I didn't realise you had edited after them – and so when I reverted, it inadvertently took your edits with them. — Czello ^(music) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. How are you? Would you please close Replacing Current and Currently with As of? I can do it by myself but I think if another user conclude it, it would be better. Plus we may want add the result to WP:PW/MOS. It seems like majority of users agree with Oknazevad's suggestion. Also, JDC808's suggestion sounds good enough. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I added Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Result: Removing current and currently, but how can I close the whole discussion with a summary/conclusion? --Mann Mann (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mann Mann: Sorry I missed this – I've closed it now. I can definitely recommend DiscussionCloser for closing with a summary. — Czello ^(music) 10:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I installed it. Thanks for your help. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read his essay on Wikipedia's bias. I could not agree more. DocZach (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens! Czello! You’re another long-standing editor who feels like giving Larry Sanger a good few pats on the back, though you’re a much more prolific I am. Chapeau! Boscaswell talk 22:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no talk about wikipedia rebutting the propaganda that most of the rapist were Asian/Mongols and Central Asians. Sure some of them were but majority of the criminals were white. If you go to forums, quora there's full of these nonsense because people would rather read books instead of wikipedia and I wish wikipedia will inform these people. I can show you many examples of the books and questions people ask. It's because most of these people don't even know it's propaganda.LeanAndYoung (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread at WP:NPOVN to get the views of others. However, in the mean time, please stop removing this content, as I'm not seeing a justified reason for it. — Czello ^(music) 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for ruining my Wikipedia experience and deleting an article I worked so hard on, best wishes to you, there are tons of messy articles that stays but one about a prominent feud gets deleted despite the votes being even 3-3 what can I say, I am done making article. pls do at least one favor, no need to reply to this I will be less and less active after today and wish you all the best and congratulations on the biggest achievement of your life ruining a fellow editor's hard work rather than helping him improve it, take care and wish you well you are a great editor, feel free to delete my message if you want, I hope for the best to you, good bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: I'm not sure why you're putting the blame on me – I didn't raise the 2nd AfD and plenty of other people also voted to delete. It wasn't an even 3-3, it was 4-3 – but even still, it's not about the number of votes, it's about the quality of the arguments. I understand and appreciate that you put a lot of work into the article, but ultimately the issues of notability were raised with you several times, going back 18 months. The issues weren't fixed, even though I spelt out how they could be. Why be mad at me when you had ample opportunity to improve the article after the first AfD and didn't? — Czello ^(music) 09:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry bro it's common, mine have been taken down as well, but hey it is what it is WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ngl this reminds me of that one episode of Squidward being disappointed with his band in that episode of the superbowl concert WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleLuxury Wiki its ok life goes on, btw yeah that episode was called "Band Geeks" but this is not a forum, no need to discuss that here and Czello is a great editor, i should have worked harder to establish notability, I admit its my fault, nothing more on this. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

understandable WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. What should I do in a discussion if no one answers or is interested in discussing the Brexit Party's political position? I'm asking this since I'm not a Wikipedia expert and I haven't been on Wikipedia that long. Monito rapido (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions take time, especially on things like this; there's no rush to achieve a consensus. I'd say just wait it out - there's WP:NODEADLINE — Czello ^(music) 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Kashmiri closed the discussion. Monito rapido (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's something to discuss with them if you feel it should be re opened. Ultimately there needs to be consensus, and right now there isn't — Czello ^(music) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello, with the 2024 campaign being "in full swing", it’s suddenly more important, I feel, for the article to encapsulate the policies being offered. With Reform UK not being a party which any mainstream media favours, there is little chance of balanced reporting thereof. I would like to end up with a punchy subsection in a similar format to that for the '2019 UK general election platform as the Brexit Party' subsection. This could be done, if say I was to go through the party website[1] and pick out the top line only for each category. By being picky like that be incomplete, but of course it’s not possible to summarise adequately a complete set of policies in 20 or so lines. Thoughts? Please ping me in any response. Thanks! Boscaswell talk 10:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boscaswell: Hi, a section like that would work, but it might be worth waiting until their manifesto (or whatever they're calling it, as apparently they don't want to use that word) is released. They do have their pre-manifesto for their most recent policies, but I imagine their full manifesto won't be far off. From there we could have a bulleted list. — Czello ^(music) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks, mate. Boscaswell talk 10:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People will be misled into thinking Finn Balor was still champion then, is there no picture available with him holding the title? still think its better than the demon balor pic which had zero relevance to it tho. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any pictures available of him with the title. However my only objection was to the phrase "pictured here", as saying "Balor at Wrestlemania 34" and "Balor pictured here at WrestleMania 34" mean the same thing. — Czello ^(music) 13:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok understood. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello, I noticed that you removed my edit on George Galloway's page earlier where I added some additional comments he had made on the Israel-Hamas war. You noted that the words I described him having used were not really sourced. For reference, here is a recorded clip of him saying what I had quoted him as having said - https://twitter.com/israel_advocacy/status/1759255363377901865. The issue remains, of course, that I cannot use a twitter post as a reference (even though this video gives definitive proof of him having said that). I still think this is a relevant piece of information to include. Any suggestions? Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger issue is the statement that what he said is wrong (I have no doubt it is – this is Galloway, after all). We need a source that directly mentions, challenges, and disproves him on that. Us finding other sources that don't mention him at all and using those to disprove him is outside of the scope of the project. There's also an issue about notability – him being wrong doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion, but then again if there were a source that specifically called him out on this then that could demonstrate a notable controversy. — Czello ^(music) 16:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. For clarification, I used this source (https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-rockets-airstrikes-tel-aviv-11fb98655c256d54ecb5329284fc37d2) because it mentions that the attack took place in 'nearby Israeli towns' [to the Gaza Strip], thus assuring that it did not take place in 'settlements' (as Galloway claimed). No Israeli settlement in the West Bank could be described as a 'nearby town' to Gaza.

I take your point re: notability. Nonetheless, I believe these quotes are quite a strong indication of his opinion on the subject of the present war between Israel and Hamas and Israeli/Palestinian conflict more broadly, and hence are worthy of inclusion. Referring to murdered civilians born in territory recognised as belonging within Israel's borders (unlike the West Bank) as 'settlers' is quite revealing to say the least and led to the tweet I sent you going semi-viral. Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that we'd need evidence that his comments alone were notable (i.e. that the disinformation in them had generated sufficient controversy). As for the source on him being wrong – we'd again really need something explicitly calls him out and disproves him, otherwise it's just us as Wikipedia doing it, which isn't our job. I appreciate what you're doing, though! I know it's good-faith. — Czello ^(music) 20:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Josh Cahill, which you've contributed to, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill. Jpatokal (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an express link as I indicated - WP:MELTZER - which we can use in the future if we have any more trouble from anyone over Dave Meltzer. We can spread this around other editors who were involved. Consensus is there 100 percent and thanks for the closing as you beat me to it. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks mate. — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully come to you directly due to a comment you made. Regarding Sting, you said "retirement doesn't mean not employed". I gotta take issue with that. If Joe Blow the truck driver retires from Acme Trucking Company, he ain't employed by them any more...kinda the point of retirement i.e. you don't have to work any more. When Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant retired, that meant they were no longer players for their teams. I think the collective "we" as Wikipedia editors are reading too much in the fact that AEW hasn't removed Sting from their roster page. Like I pointed out, Brodie Lee and Jay Briscoe are still listed even though they died. Wrestling - being without set roster limits - allows you to keep "homage" listings for people even though they have died or retired. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure you know where I'm coming from, I'm not trying to go after you (or anybody) or beat you (or anybody) up. All I'm saying is stop a beat, survey the landscape, and take a breath before doing a Thelma and Louise in the Grand Canyon Vjmlhds (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately that page isn't a list of active wrestlers – we include anyone notable who's under the payroll, including non-wrestlers. I think until we get confirmation he's no longer with AEW he should remain there. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something since you sent me the warning, I was reacting to an anon IP putting Sting back on the roster, not realizing that there was further discussion. Had I known that there was further discussion since last night, I would have let it sit to start with. My antennae usually goes up when I see anon IPs edit these types of articles any way, as a lot of the time they just screw around for their own gits and shiggles, so that was my instinct for my revert. But now that I have seen was has gone on since last night, I'm fine with things as they sit right now. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Apologies if the warning was too harsh – I should have followed WP:REGULARS. The reason I sent it though was because you were at 3 reverts already and 3RR is a bright-line rule (i.e. instant block); I didn't want this to be a thing at WP:EWN and a block wouldn't have been beneficial. I could have conveyed that in a less 'threatening' way, though – sorry about that. — Czello ^(music) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So im pretty new in this wikipedia so i dont know much about getting the license into the main domain etc so it would have been great if you do that for me Becuase the poster featuring rock roman cody and seth is the biggest event or match you can call it of the wrestlemania event and im a wwe fan since past 9 years and in my eyes this is more bigger in terms or story telling and star power compared to roman vs cody as wwe itself hasnt been focusing on this match since last few weeks from the announcement of the tag team match of roman rock cody and seth so i would have been a great help if you put that poster instead of the normal cody vs roman. I dont know how more i can express or explain the reason for puting the tag team match as the poster Becuase it is that huge of a match. Thank you AravindEditor (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by reading WP:LICENSE – however, your reasoning for including the tag poster is WP:POV. WWE themselves seem to prioritise the Night 2 Main Event poster on their website: https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania — Czello ^(music) 11:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats true but see wwe always promotes the matches having more value so they can attract more fans and if you remember in years like 2014,15,16,18,19, etc wwe used the poster for promoting the bigger matches in the card thats is avaliable also in 2012 and 2013 and same goes for this year! Many new people are gonna watch wwe wrestlemania if they see the Rock the top hollywood in a fight. And thats why wwe is promoting this match more and the outcomes for the Roman vs Cody is gonna come from the tag team match itself so i guess you should add the poster that i was adding but please do the licensing and domain stuff it would be a great please for all wwe fans AravindEditor (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But again, their main poster is the Reings-Cody match (see link above). If that's what they're primarily using, so should we. We shouldn't edit Wikipedia in a way that's beneficial for WWE fans – we're here to make an objective and neutral encyclopedia. — Czello ^(music) 11:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first point you said is true but no doubt sooner or later they are gonna make the tag team poster as the main poster so i guess that time we need to chNge AravindEditor (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! How do you do? Nobody replied to this discussion. Need your opinion. Please participate. Best Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm very new to editing on Wikipedia, and I noticed that you know what you're doing, so I wanted to ask you a question.

On the page "Talk:WrestleMania XL", under the topic "LA Knight vs AJ Styles", it appears as if someone has edited it to make it look like I've reneged on my factually correct statement (they put "Oh, yes it had.") I don't think it's arrogant to think that they're pretending to be me to make me look silly.

What should I do about this?

Thank you for your attention. Vincent Forrester (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if they're actually trying to impersonate you – but to make it clear, I've put an {{unsigned}} tag after it, so people can see it's not from you. You can use it too for future instances like that, just check out Template:unsigned to see how it works. — Czello ^(music) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving that warning on their talk page; I was about to do the same. Heads-up, it is likely the same user as El Caganer. A Checkuser was performed and the admin determined that they're in the same city, one account is using a mobile connection, and the other is using a home internet connection. It bears watching, but personally, I'm 99% sure they're the same person. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I suspected it might be a sock case. It looks like we might have to add Synalepha to that, as well. — Czello ^(music) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was an insightful catch by you. Justice done in the end. Well done. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple WP:PW/RS are reporting it, and I seen a lot of readers support it. If it was an unsourced era name they added I would not support but at this point its widely acknowledged like the Attitude Era, Ruthless Aggression Era, Reality Era. Its not a marketing strategy, WWE isn't making more money by name they just name a different time in the company, a different era. Adding one sentecte that Cody Rhodes coined the term on April 3, 2024 is not WP:Undue, its just a single sentence backed by multiple and most reliable WP:PW/RS including precious "WON" among others. While we may make it the hedding later I believe the single sentence of Cody Rhodes mentioning it should be included on the WWE articles. Currently am kinda busy but will fix it when I get the time. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any evidence it's "widely acknowledged", particularly to the level of the AE or RAE (Reality Era is an article that should be deleted anyway). All we have so far is that Cody is trademarked the name, as far as I can see. Beware that WP:RECENTISM is a thing, and that's just why the "New Era" article was created and later deleted. There needs to be WP:LASTING proof it's a widely used term. — Czello ^(music) 07:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not recentism as TKO formed on September 12, 2023 almost a year back, and this is the first era under TKO after Vince left (and gave away minimal share required for having any more say), things have changed and that makes up a new era, the word Ruthless Aggression was hardly sued ever after 2002, yet 2002-2008 was considered the era's name, eras happen after major changes (like after Hogan and Savage left in early 90s the new generations era which wasn't even called an era then but rather a concept was named). Things under TKO are different and multiple sources reported a new era, and we must consider the best interest of our readers, and Cody Rhodes coined the term and its supported by multiple sources. Not saying it should be the heading yet, that I agree with you but we should mention a single sentence that Cody Rhodes on said date declared the era, and if it stays consistent after a certaian duration we can rename the heading of it. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also am not suggesting to make an article on it "yet" that may take 3 years or more, but as of now per HUGE no of WP:RS acknowledgement and the best interest of our readers just leave the single sentence, anyway will give you time to think, next time I may return hope we come to an agreement, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying TKO is recentism, I'm saying that the "Renaissance Era" is recentism – as the term has only just come about. How much WP:WEIGHT we give it is going to be dependent on sources and what those sources say, exactly. — Czello ^(music) 08:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Renaissance Era" refers to the time since TKo take over, yes Cody just coined it a few days back thats why I am not naming a heading based on it, just saying we should just leave a single sentence that the biggest star in the company coined a term for the current phase of WWE, and if it phases out we can remove the sentence, and if it lingers then the period upto which it is called as such will be known as part of the era, anyway just merely discussing with you not editing it yet, but ok give it a week or so, we can see, take care.. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man,

Read this: "Timur (Tamerlane), who conquered Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria; the civilian population was decimated, and the ancient city of Assur was finally abandoned by the Assyrians after a 4000-year history. Timur had 70,000 Christian Assyrians beheaded in Tikrit, and 90,000 more in Baghdad."

For the above paragraph, two sources are cited; neither of them says the city of Assur was abandoned. Neither of them claims Timur beheaded 70,000 Christians in Tikrit and 90,000 more in Baghdad. Interestingly, one of the sources states that Timur fought the Kurds and took Tikrit from the Kurds.

ArezKader (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did u good at the wrestlelamia she vacant her title due to her injury Xenia133 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware it's not confirmed she's vacated. If you've seen something that says otherwise, please source it — Czello ^(music) 20:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: You are not the subject of the noticeboard. One of your recent edits was linked in the noticeboard regarding another user. This is just informing you about that. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TylerBurden reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: ) for further information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. Recently you removed something from the Reigns reception article. People praising his title reign. There are some wrestlers praising him, maybe you can include it in the article. [2] [3] [4] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to include; I'm travelling at the moment so my editing abilities are rather limited. Feel free to add it to the article instead. — Czello ^(music) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post nonsense on my talk page again. You were the one who started reverting and you should have opened a discussion the first time. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:3RR, and most importantly, WP:BLPRESTORE. Please read these before adding BLP violations. — Czello ^(music) 13:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, just wanted to also let you know there's discussion about this at WP:AN3 given how EpicAdventurer has responded to this. KoA (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a lesbian, then this is a personal freedom, but for Sturgeon to respond personally to this allegation, this alone gives notice and value to this incident. As I told you, this incident was widely discussed in cyberspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicAdventurer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA thanks for the notification and also the report. — Czello ^(music) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Czello. Would you keep an eye on the page? KusumaSPMTickford keep adding unsourced the other person as founders. According to multiple sources, Tony Khan is the sole founder of the company.

• AEW on X: "Founded by President and CEO Tony Khan"
• Newsweek: "AEW was founded in January by Tony Khan"
• International Business Times: "Tony Khan, the founder of AEW" --

183.171.121.35 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JoBo GamerYT. I noticed that you recently removed content from Conservative Party (UK) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JoBo Gamer (contribs) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my edit summary? I did explain why. Please do not restore it without further discussion on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czello. I'm out. Personally, I believe that the Alba Party is right-leaning. However, sources, including the European Union, the article I cited, and the Alba Party itself, indicate that it has a centre-left to centre-right stance. Hence my intervention. I don't plan to raise this in Talk as personally, I don't care, other than to try and give an accurate idea of how the party is portrayed. So, like I say, I'm out. Cheers. Psychomike (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Czello ,

I don't see why we can't add the rows in the tables yet. I see it more often that, in articles on political parties, those are added before everything is known(e.g. they don't know yet whether they will be in coalition, but the row for that election is already there).

Kind regards, Damontje Damontje (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because right now there's nothing to add – it's all "TBA", so it's not serving an encyclopedic purpose. — Czello ^(music) 09:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made shameful mistake due to my misunderstanding of how page moving works, as you can see [5]. However, I was prevented by an automatic filter to undo this revision of mine [6], so I ask you to undo it. Please forgive me for my misunderstanding. 2402:8100:24CD:D573:F892:4AE5:25C9:6A7F (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've already undone it! — Czello ^(music) 07:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia not moderated or... This thread on the September 11th talk page is giving me a migraine. Butterscotch5 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the past two threads were closed already I'm surprised others have allowed the third one to go on... — Czello ^(music) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been posting on the talk page for my current IP address. (Although I have the same IP address, I am not the person getting into spats with you.)

This IP address belongs to a government building and its intranet, and there are hundreds of employees using our network. Not all of the address's associated edits are from the same person, although obviously some are.

I just wanted to let you know why there is such a wide variety of edits of different intensities and characters, and why this IP address's edit list may seem so chaotic.

User talk:165.189.75.1

Special:Contributions/165.189.75.1

165.189.75.1 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[7] +1 Cambial — foliar❧ 15:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a talk page is the right way to go about this, and I wouldn't characterize the user as disruptive (so I didn't want to go the administrator board route), just perhaps, a bit over-enthusiastic without proper mentorship. Feel free to comment here or on my talk page or contact me as appropriate. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GooseSpoon#Acanthocephala_terminalis. Michael pirrello Michael pirrello (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but I'm not likely to be very active over the next few days so I might not be much help! — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/86.14.91.240

I saw you reverted their edit. This specific IP user has been active since April 2024. Most of their edits are unhelpful. Poor rewording, violation of MOS guidelines, and removal of sources and referenced content. Plus ignoring all messages on their talk page. I reported them[8][9] but there was no action despite obvious disruptive edits like this [10] and using insults[11] on their talk page. They have already disrupted many articles which might need to be reverted or reviewed. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll give a look through their contributions – it might be that we take it to WP:ANI. — Czello ^(music) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on Deobandi movement. It would seem that unverified, biased and possibly advocational content is being added to the lead, without any inline citations, or citations anywhere else in the article verifying the aforementioned content, which keeps getting added and removed. Thank you. 2402:8100:24CD:A716:B5C4:75DE:891:9D15 (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We might need to keep an eye on this, as there's been some efforts by an IP too (would not be shocked to find out they were one and the same!) who has tried to delete that reference to their criminal conviction, pointing to 'human rights' law in the process. It's sort of an edit war but feels more like POV pushing, not sure where the next avenue would be if it continues as I'm usually just here to revert vandalism and don't usually get in content disputes (and I started out RVing the content removal 3-4 days ago!) Porterjoh (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed a few attempts to scrub that information recently. If it continues I suspect the next avenue will be page protection. I'll keep an eye out. — Czello ^(music) 14:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please take a moment to review any videos of him before his nose surgery from 2012 to 2015, and observe the difference in his nose compared to after the surgery (February 23, 2016). His nose has noticeably become flatter and wider. There are constant rumors circulating about his nose surgery, so it's important to clarify the facts. Samngcsnow (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make interpretations of videos or anything else, that's WP:OR. Anything you add should have a source that explicitly states what you're saying – although I'll add that his nose being a slightly different shape isn't notable enough to include anyway. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that the change in his nose shape is not slight, it is significant and observable in videos before and after the surgery. Samngcsnow (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it doesn't seem to be particularly notworthy information for an encyclopedia. — Czello ^(music) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see removing key information about the party as irrelevant, which I presume is what out of scope means. I think not having it violates NPOV. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Hi, ultimately the method of how Reform works doesn't really have anything to do with James McMurdock‎; it's WP:UNDUE weight. We don't talk about the internal mechanisms of other parties for their MPs. I think it is ultimately irrelevant, as the aritcle is about him, not how his party functions on a technical level. I'm fine with it being in their article (and also in the articles of their shareholders), but it's hard to justify it should be in his (especially not in the lead). — Czello ^(music) 14:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the basis of this being a unique feature of the party; It's also a neutral factual statement that I think readers should be aware of. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is a unique feature – which is why it should be in Reform's article as well as that of other shareholders. It's WP:UNDUE to include it in McMurdock's, as it doesn't really concern him (presumbly, he doesn't have a say over this function). Readers absolutely can be aware by reading Reform's article, but it's shoehorned (and therefore, I would say, not neutral) to be in McMurdock's. — Czello ^(music) 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on his website so why not in his article?[12] Doug Weller talk 15:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not his website, it's Reform's – which sort of proves my point. — Czello ^(music) 15:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello True. But still relevant and I'm a big believer in transparency in politics. I hope you won't be offended if I take this, not you, to NPOVN? I'll make it clear I'm not accusing you of anything wrong, this is a disagreement as to how policy applies. OK? Doug Weller talk 15:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, please raise a thread there if you feel it necessary. I'll contribute also. No offence taken. — Czello ^(music) 15:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. How arem you? I hope you have a good summer. I have a question. Lately, I'm hearing Chris Van Vliet's podcast, it's very interesting. I found this segment, where Booker T pointed that Vince McMahon signed Sharmell so they can spend more time together. There is any way we can use this clip as source? [13] Thanks HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Hi mate, I would say in theory the podcast itself could be used as a source (though it should be attributed as it's Booker's own words, so "According to Booker T..." per WP:PRIMARY). However, linking to the Instagram page probably isn't good per WP:RSPIG. Is it from this episode? If so I'd link to that with the timestamp included. — Czello ^(music) 18:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, I just noticed the podcast website has the transcription. I think I can use it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop gatekeeping Gabbygabby12 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it because it was redundant. It repeated the previous sentence. — Czello ^(music) 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason to remove my edit. Gabbygabby12 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are explained in the edit summaries. Your most recent edits, respectfully, aren't improving the article – they're mostly adding superfluous information. — Czello ^(music) 21:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's awfully subjective. What's the point of contributing to an article if all contributions are immediately revoked? Please tell me what the criteria is for correct edits (in your eyes) Gabbygabby12 (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen mate, I know you are a dedicated editor, and I respect you for that, but you can't stop others from making edits that are factual and informative. Gabbygabby12 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all edits are constructive (even if they're factually accurate). For example, we don't need to list non-notable matches (such as the 205 Live one) or the years PPVs take place when the section already mentions the year. — Czello ^(music) 21:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me what I need to do so my edits are not 'superfluous'. I am genuinely asking. Gabbygabby12 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to start is by reading WP:N. The content we add should be notable – for example, we don't report on weekly matches because they're not notable. Try to avoid repeating information that is already included in an article. Simplicity is best, so we don't need to full name people when a surname will do. — Czello ^(music) 21:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we could finally reach a point of agreement. Gabbygabby12 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you are giving that random IP the attention they are so desperate for? I know it's tempting but I hate to see you waste your time. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition of All In 2023 to this list as the list is for mainland continental Europe only. A separate list exists for the United Kingdom as is made clear in the hatnote on this list.
I trust I do not have to explain the geography of the situation! Romomusicfan (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello, slight update on the above. Apparently the list does include shows in the Republic of Ireland so that point about Continental Europe is not quite true and the hatnote on the List has been amended accordingly.
However, AEW All In 2023 (and any subsequent All In show at Wembley Stadium) would still not be eligible as it would be covered instead by the separate list for the United Kingdom as linked above. Romomusicfan (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away so apologies for the slow reply. Thanks for this, I didn't notice that qualifier. It actually seems odd that the article excludes the UK like that, though I can see why. — Czello ^(music) 08:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that the UK is excluded, rather that it has its own separate list. This was not my decision, it was set up that way by other editors many years ago, but it reflects a tradition of strong local scenes in the United Kingdom plus a particularly strong 1990s WWF/WCW boom, most obviously Summerslam 92.
British Wrestling was one of two European territories to have TV 1950s-1980s (French Wrestling being the other, plus Germany/Austria had a strong programme of home video releases from 1980 onwards, these being the three old school European territories where there is large quantities of footage.)
The British scene has its own article (the only European territory to do so until I wrote the above linked France one less than a year ago) so the separate attendance figures list reflects this. Romomusicfan (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Czello, it's nice to meet you. I have an edit request sitting at Talk:Oasis Management regarding content that may not meet WP:UNDUE, and you seem to be an editor with experience (and interest) in that topic. If you have time to take a look, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks in advance, SandraMurphy33 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping Kuci Tribe article safe and stopping vandalism.

Setxkbmap (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My favourite animal, too! — Czello ^(music) 12:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have accepted a pending edit to the article above; this edit introduced some changes to the article which I don't think are supported by the sources already in the article, and new sources haven't been presented. If you would be so kind to review your review? Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It all seemed like minor/non-controversial stuff to me, but feel free to revert if you don't agree with them. — Czello ^(music) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if i am knocking on the right doors, but currently there is a discussion at the Kuči (tribe) article, where people refuse to accept sources that in modern days (but basically in the last 300 years) the tribe has been overwhelmingly Serb/Montenegrin. I am arguing that because they want to state that the tribe is Albanian in the origin (which really has weak sources, but that's not the issue currently) that they should state in the first sentence that tribe is currently Montenegrin. As a reader (especially one who reads only summaries on google) can be mislead and could think that the tribe is Albanian nowadays. (And you can see that the same doesn't apply to their tribes, for example Krasniqi which has families in Montenegro and Serbia that are NOT Albanian, but article states, like it should, that it's an Albanian tribe)

I provided them with the most coprehensive book on the tribe, written at the end of the last century, i quoted one of the best books about the tribe that was written at the beginning of the century, and i gave them census data. They discard all of that, because they believe that because there is minority of Albanian and Bosniak population, current state of tribe shouldn't be mentioned because it's irrelevant, yet origin is very importnant. They give me their own views, saying "I know Albanian families" and one of them is equaling haplogroups with identity, as if that is what builds your ethnic and national affiliations.

Also, i dont think that they are discussing in good faith, as they constantly use Albanian name for the tribe, instead of English one.

Any advice? Sorry for bothering you Setxkbmap (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea with the aprovement of Bálor and Mysterio, made Priest in to a One Night Only leader (Captain) to lead the group for just their Wargames match. BJavierPR (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment day agreed to appoint Priest as a one off leader just for Wargames (2023). Thats it. BJavierPR (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for this? — Czello ^(music) 07:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post on my page again. stay with your cello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs)

@Digitalsurgeon: First, I'll assume this was supposed to go onto my talk page rather than being vandalism of my userpage; please ensure that's where you make posts. Second, please remain WP:CIVIL; bitterness will get you nowhere. Finally, given that your posts have a POV-habit to them (as illustrated by your userpage), I'm going to post on your talk page if I think you're vandalising articles or otherwise making bad-faith edits. — Czello ^(music) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright i will keep a lame eye on you too and see if you have any propaganda posts and i will reply there :) digitalSurgeon (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]