User talk:Czello/Archive 4

I thought that you might find it interesting that there are some rumors going around about the Ica Stones that in truth when Basilio Uschuya admitted to faking the Ica Stones he was threatened with some sort of punishment toward himself and his family by the local national government if he didn't admit to faking the Ica Stones. I don't know if it is the truth but it would be interesting thing to investigate if the government was actually using some force in order to fill some personal agenda. Possibly instead of taking the governments word on the issue some expert on the field such as Smithsonian Institute should investigate for themselves.KJames94 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I like the flowchart you made to show the history of wrestling world championships. Can I ask what software you used? I'd like to make a similar chart showing the early 20th century world titles and would want the two to match. Ozdarka (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply -- I've been off Wikipedia for a while. I used an iPad app called PureFlow, although it's not actually all that great. Honestly, you'd be better off using the flowchart templates in Microsoft Excel or Word. — Richard BB 16:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, thank you. Ozdarka (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the IP editor who has recently been vandalising your user page has done so off and on since at least as far back as June 2014, and there have been disruptive IP edits (probably from other editors) for more than three years. I have taken the liberty of indefinitely semi-protecting the page. If for any reason you don't want the protection please let me know, and I will unprotect it, but it seems to me best to keep it protected. If you like, I can semi-protect your talk page too, but I regard talk-page protection as a last resort, and even then only for a limited time, as there are often legitimate reasons for new or unregistered editors to post to a user's talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the semi-protection of my user page. Protecting my talk page won't be necessary -- thanks for the offer though. — Richard BB 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard! A while back I wanted to make an edit to the Battle of Gettysburg page, but it was struck down. The reasoning was fine but a bit of an edit-war erupted (it was probably both because the main editors of that page were a little possessive and I was probably a bit stubborn :) This time I want to add some information from a professor of mine who taught Civil War history, but to avoid another conflict (no pun intended) I wanted to consult an admin first. Can I run my changes past you first? Thanks if I can! SuperAnth (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can if you want – but I'm not actually an admin! — Richard BB 17:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol perhaps not, but you offered sage council the last time I ended up in a Flame War and I appreciate that. Also I'd like to get a third-party involved before I try to make any changes, and you're pretty much the ideal third-party with your experience making edits. I'd also be happy to include a Wiki Admin if you'd be able to recommend one. SuperAnth (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that was former flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo 838 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo 838: It was, but that article is for flags which incorporate the Union Jack. The Hong Kong flag does not. — Richard BB 15:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The former one did had Nemo 838 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it is under the category former flags Nemo 838 (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo 838: My mistake, I misinterpreted the edit; I've undone my change and reverted to yours. — Richard BB 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay Nemo 838 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2013 you added a sentence to the World War II article about political scientists predicting WW2 in the early 1930s. I saw the sentence yesterday and as the citation was tagged "page number needed" I checked to see if it was available on line. It was but I discovered that it did not seem to support the sentence you had added. As the sentence you had added seemed reasonable I left it in place but replaced the citation you had used with cite-needed and started a talk page thread at Talk:World War II#Cite about political scientist prediction removed. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry about the slow reply. If I'm honest that was so long ago that I can't recall what the original source said or why I added it. Thanks for picking up on this! — Richard BB 13:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richard. Thanks for sharing your source of the diagram. Since the new diagram is a mess, with SYNTH and OR, o you think you can upload your diagram to include the AWA world title and the name of the WWE Championship? I prefer to use your diagram. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'd probably be better if I re-created it from scratch: the original was made on a bad app that I can't even remember the name of. Give me a week and I'll recreate it. — Richard BB 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't help in a dispute when you are misusing rollback,[1] leaving a one sided edit warring warning[2] posting unhelpful talk page message[3] and reviving a resolved dispute. It only speaks against you. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss this on the article's talk page -- leave it there. — Czello 08:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Czello Thank you for the edits you made to the section on Politics of JK Rowling. You've made the wording much more neutral. You did revert my older edits on her main page under the transgender section. If you think some of the expanded new information in the Politics page is also relevant, could you copy and paste from the Politics page over to her main page under the relevant transgender section please? I was going to do it myself but I didn't want to revert anymore edits as I was told not to. Once you're happy with the wording, if you want to copy and paste if over, that would be great if you think it's relevant. Thanks. Scream5fan (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scream5fan: It looks like there are still disputes about this content, so I don't think it should be added to the main page just yet. — Czello 20:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Czello Ok. Well, whenever you feel a consensus has been reached, feel free to copy it over to the section on the main page.

Also, should that user be able to come in and completely delete two paragraphs worth of information we've all worked on and edited? Especially as it's all sourced? I'm still new so not sure whether to revert it or not. Hopefully someone else will and take the debate to the Talk page. He completely wiped the last paragraph which has already been discussed on the Talk page with more voting it should stay (the King stuff) AND completely deleted the first paragrah which is not just speculation - it's based on three or more articles (Times, Vox, etc.) that points to subplots in her novels AND completely verifable comments from her represntatives to major news outlets. None of that is mere "speculation" -it's all well proven and sourced. Could you or someone else challenge him? I've been warned about something called the revert rule, not to revert edits (not by Wikipedia but by another user), so not sure if that was just his edits or not, but as a result, I'm not sure what to do ! Thank you.

Scream5fan (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scream5fan: If I'm honest I wasn't sure about including those paragraphs either, so I can't completely disagree with MetaTracker's removal of them. However, I tried to improve the quality slightly and leave it to others to decide upon. As someone else has now contested the edits, I think it's best to just discuss it on the article's talk page. — Czello 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for coming on strong. I feel rowlings and bindel are attacking my own personal rights, so this issue is directly relevant and very important for me. Its hard to step back. I hope I not come across as attacking you. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodney: No prob, I get that it's an emotive topic. I certainly don't think you're attacking me -- I'm just more concerned about the neutrality of the article. — Czello 20:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, I have noticed you decided to remove my edit without talking this though. You labelled my edit as non-notable but System Resistance being the second ever fascist/ neo-nazi organisation to have been banned in the UK makes it significantly notable. I shall be reverted your deletion and I encourage you to discuss why you do not believe my edit is notable, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.22.29 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@86.130.22.29: Hi, so notability has to be proven -- them being banned doesn't inherently make them notable, they need to be notable on their own merits. Let's resume this discussion on the article talk page rather than here so more people can see it. 22:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@86.130.22.29: I should point out you made several errors in your post: you confused the name of the group (System Resistance Network is an alias of National Action, who are already mentioned); you linked to the wrong part of the article; and you also made some formatting errors. I've fixed these for you now. Also please see WP:EW for a definition of what edit warring is: a single revert isn't edit warring, it's part of our process. — Czello 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against Mishovy Silenosti. Jimmotron (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LEDE; this isn't the right place to mention individuals who were born there. — Czello 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry about that, but if you have a YouTube channel, I can sub to you. Jimmotron (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who changed the introduction but for some reason it seems some editors are purposefully trying to make Luciferianism look bad or evil. As a fellow Luciferian Gnostic, it really insults me to see it like that. Please explain yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christeos Luciftias (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is trying to make it sound bad. The words "guardian" and "light bringer" were still there. I'm not sure who deleted the citation, I just wanted to make sure that "liberator" was also sourced. — Czello 09:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please don't notify socks they're at SPI, It seems rather daft to tell them!, You should only tell them in a good faith situation (ie you don't fully know if they are a sock or not), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 09:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fair enough, I thought it was mandatory (like when reporting to AN). Will keep this in mind in future! — Czello 09:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nope you don't need to notify them in this case :), Happy editing :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your swift and thorough evaluation at the ANI about Jay Smith (Christian apologist) . It allowed swift and effective responses from admins. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Czello 17:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rklahn (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

— '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' : — Czello

to

— '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' : — Czello

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will change it now. — Czello 08:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.146.122 (talk • contribs)

I undid it as it wasn't constructive and I would even call it disruptive. If you want to seriously discuss the naming of the article you need to do so without calling people filth. There is even an ongoing debate to rename the article, which you scrolled past. — Czello 13:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must be a special kind of privileged to argue semantics while millions are being ethnically cleansed. This is not up for "debate" as it is clear as day, but you have fun with your pretend play authority on Wikipedia. Please spare me your reply, your words irk me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.146.122 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@41.238.146.122: Wikipedia follows a certain set of policies, one of which is avoiding personal attacks. You can make your point without calling people who disagree "filth". If you want to engage in the existing debate, do so properly. — Czello 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DROPIT. Once Jimbo is blocked I'll revert the edits. It's obvious he won't stop while unblocked. © Tbhotch^™ 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will drop it. See my quick comments re this here, if curious.

Bows, Zezen (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have my edit reinstated, or at least just remove monarchists from the Neo-Fascism page. I can assure you if you go to the USmonarchy subreddit and or ask around in the discord you will find ever word of what I said to be true and backed up. American monarchists are very opposed to nazis and are highly upset by being wrongly put in the same page as them Belgrifex (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Belgrifex: Hi, so initially I asked that a reliable source be added backing the variety of views that neo-monarchists have. However, after double checking the existing sources, I notice that monarchism isn't mentioned at all. Therefore I've removed the mention of them entirely. — Czello 20:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of all of us, thank you! Belgrifex (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello, you've misunderstood the revision that you reverted. I was partly restoring the actual status quo text after Onetwothreeip made a change without consensus, the version that's been standing for the last 18 or so hours is not the status quo text. I'm unable to fully restore it as I'd already done so within the last 24 hours and would be in violation of 1RR. If you're able to do so, I'd appreciate it if you could restore the full status quo text. I also left a message at Onetwothreeip's talk page (and they were already asked by SPECIFICO to restore the previous text). Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 14:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can disregard this, I see Bdushaw has stepped in and restored it. Jr8825 • Talk 14:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: Apologies mate, completely got it the wrong way round! My mistake. — Czello 14:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good :) Stay safe, Jr8825 • Talk 14:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]