User talk:Czello/Archive 7

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that big of a deal, but for clarity's sake, the reason I included the term "coaches" is because that is AEW's term for road agent/producer.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Oh, fair enough -- I didn't know that! Add it back in if you want. — Czello 12:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am User:Thatoneguylol101. You are supporting wrong things. Do you have any Wikipedia experience? During the 25 man Battle Royal, there was no mention of The Rock. Only Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut should be mentioned at least as a sponser. I can't do anything overwise I would be breaking the 3 Revert Rule. So I am giving you a chance to fix your mistakes and mention Pizza Hut at least. Please don't mess with me. Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneguylol101: Can you tell me what you think is encyclopedic about mentioning the sponsorship of a match? Do you have any Wikipedia experience? Yes, about 15 years. — Czello 20:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the match, Pizza Hut boxes were everywhere, so it was heavily sponsered. And that makes it special, with a news article calling it a Pizza Hut themed battle royal. Here is the article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/survivor-series-actually-had-less-filler-than-the-typical-wwe-ppv/ar-AAR8CxU Best regards - Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of my edit seems a little harsh given the Reform Party is the continuity Brexit Party. There is precedent to note the parties ideological past as Big Tent. My edit did not go against any previous edits as it did not dispute the current right-wing ideology of the Reform Party (UK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.25.93 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@86.170.25.93: Hi, per the comment that you left "big tent" next to, you need to get talk page consensus before making additions to that field. Thanks. — Czello 14:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Czello|Czello]] The comment only appeared to be around the designation of the party as "right-wing". It's clear that the party has undergone significant change and my edit was only reflecting retrospective ideology. Feel free to obstruct my edits but at least reference me correctly. I didn't write "big tent", I wrote 'formerly big tent' and then clarified my edit referencing Claire Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.25.93 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@86.170.25.93: Regardless, talk page consensus is still required for this sort of thing. Calling them Big Tent also appears to be WP:OR, as well as unsourced. Feel free to open a thread on the article talk page. — Czello 15:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bate is Inaugral winner with NXT UK Championship , Heritage Cup and NXT UK Tag Team Championship 103.203.144.83 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@103.203.144.83: Do you have a source that states that NXT UK Triple Crown is a thing? Because otherwise it counts as WP:OR. — Czello 11:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added controversy section on Preet Girl with multiple references, Is there any rule not to add controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinindian (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinindian: Hi, no there's no rule that says we can't report on controversy, just that things like that need to be well sourced as WP:BLP articles tend to have stricter requirements. Thanks for adding the sources. — Czello 12:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. If you don't mind, I have removed the 2 reign from TNT title. I think that, if Sammy doesn't won the title and becomes the official champion, the interim title should be not included, since he is not the official champion. I saw other articles, like the UFC Heavyweight and the interim champions aren't included. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: No problem. To be honest, I realise that we don't have consensus on how we should approach this interim stuff, as this is really the first time we've had to do it I think. I don't feel strongly about the 2 reigns being there so I'm fine with this. — Czello 19:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Interim champions in wrestling are very strange. As far as I remember, the NXT cruiserweight, the revpro cruiserweight, chikara grand champ and a Japanese tag team (Noah or nj) -HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello, this is TdanTce. I reverted your move of Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow as per the talk page; there was consensus to not move the page under WP:COMMONNAME. TdanTce (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TdanTce: Funnily enough one of the people part of that consensus was me on a previous account! I think I'll start a new move request as I think WP:COMMONNAME takes priority here. — Czello 20:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...for stepping on your edit here. If I had known you were coming along I would've stayed out of the way. Thanks for your patience. Tiderolls 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: No worries! Have a good one. — Czello 21:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How are you. If you remember, we discussed the use of WWE Premium events, and we agree both are marketing. Just some random toughts. What about Knockouts and Women of Honor? I mean, the article in WWE is Women in WWE, where you can find the history pre and post Divas. Do you think we should change the names to Women in Impact Wrestling and Women in Ring of Honor? 1, it's similar to Women in WWE. 2, avoids a marketing term. 3, the articles also mention women before the term (KO was stablished in 2006-7 and WOH in 2016. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Hi, I suspect in this instance Knockouts and Women of Honor are the WP:COMMONNAME, whereas Divas isn't for WWE. I guess the question is which takes priority out of the common name or WP:PROMOTIONAL, and my guess is that it'll be WP:COMMONNAME. That said, I think there's a good argument to be made to changing them to just "Women in Impact Wrestling" or "Women in Ring of Honor". I think you should throw it open to the talk pages. — Czello 08:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Orton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) does not say "Randy Orton" in the first paragraph. Should it? KyleJoan^talk 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, yes. WP:PW/MOS says that the ring name should be listed in the lead. — Czello 19:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here [1] at The Undertaker is a glaring attempt to troll, be a pest and you know it. The original reason for removal was because the source was an alleged blog which it wasn't. I don't know if you were commanded by the other editor to come in as his friend and come up with a new reason for removal, you obeyed your master or what. But what I will tell you is this: Wikipedia is not a paid website and anything I'm doing for this website is a favor. That article was an unsourced glory mess before I got ahold of it. Editors like yourself can engage in the trolling foolishness all you damn well please and ward off quality content editors like me. I am not in any determined attempt to remain on this website taking up my time and energy to make unpaid edits only to be met with pest trollers like yourself. I will gladly focus on my 45,000 dollar job and will be done here in a heartbeat if it becomes nuisance in any way, shape, or form. I'll be waiting for your reply. Based on your reply to this, Wikipedia loses out on another editor, go one step further down the tubes and you can focus your trolling on someone else to further lower Wikipedia down the tubes. So what's it going to be? We putting the edit back or not. Let me know! Up to you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JudgeJudyCourthouse25: This is a deranged message to send for a justified removal. Read WP:AGF. — Czello 09:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another wrestler who had an incident at Undertaker's convention because he couldn't meet him and who is Undertaker's first opponent is notable regardless of whatever way you want to bend it because that editor is your friend. Look babe, I have two degrees in journalism, a new paid off car, a job where I work wherever I want and whenever I want. I am not reading a thing. My accomplishments speak for themselves. Like I said, do you want Wikipedia to have my free blood, sweat and tears or don't you. I am asking you nicely one last time to remove your reversion or I am retiring and will focus on a hobby where I'm making money. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may retire, then. During your retirement you could also do with reading WP:OWN and WP:NOTABILITY. — Czello 09:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later!!! :) By the way, I hope this is a lesson in how you deal with other editors. Good luck Wikipedia! You continue to lose editors for the behaviors above that some people, like myself, won't put up with for two seconds!!! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laters, then. If you're not "reading a thing" then perhaps Wikipedia wasn't for you in the first place. — Czello 09:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why you and many other editors are hesitant on keeping the freakin part when it's clearly part of WWE's stupidity. So if you're so hesitant about it, you might as well rename the whole article Seth "Freakin" Rollins. I tried to make a compromise, but it didn't work, so if you have another method to keep both names without it being deleted then say it cause we can't ignore history. ChallengeCick (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it stupid all you like, but that's his ring name. We list the ring name he's currently using in the lead. The title of the article isn't the same and reflects WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 21:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't have to tell ya. We've a problem & it's edit-warring by a sock master. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fransky speaking, I cannot see a clear consensu to redirect this page Russian fascism (ideology) ont it's talk page. Can you please check whether it's enough what was discussed on the talk page. The context is that the page was nominated for deletion and was Kept per NO Consensus. Redirect is quite the same as deletion, and the profound and broad discussion need to done with administrators involded. However, this is not the case with this page. --IgorTurzh (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that the RDR so soon after the AfD was surprising to me, but it seems like the community was leaning (albeit marginally) towards a RDR. To be honest, I think the best bet is to open an RfC on the matter (or maybe redirects for discussion? I'm actually not sure what method is best given the article's current limbo status) so we can resolve it once and for all. — Czello 19:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello just stared discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Russian fascism page. Thank you for an advice. Would be grateful, if you join the discussion. IgorTurzh (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there -- I just realized I undid a revision you described in the talk page. Apologies, I didn't make the connection before applying the undo. If you think the edit still makes sense, feel free to reapply. Happy also to continue discussion in talk over on Talk:Libs of TikTok. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Siliconred: No worries, I actually think your justification makes sense so I'm fine with your reversion. — Czello 16:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that, too close to home Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, the strange number of Kremlin apologists is becoming a bit concerning! — Czello 07:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't handle this... 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 09:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was so incredibly close to saying "yep, advice taken!". Glad someone else found the irony in his reply. — Czello 09:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. How are you? Would you please add these articles to your watchlist?

• Alexa Bliss
• Charlotte Flair
• Indi Hartwell
• Liv Morgan
• Rhea Ripley
• Shotzi Blackheart

I may not edit the above articles anymore because I want to focus on some other PW articles. I looked at Charlotte Flair and Rhea Ripley and they may be already a mess due to edits by IPs and new users (e.g. BLP violation and unhelpful changes to lead & infobox) especially since the end of WrestleMania Backlash 2022 and the following Raw episode. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, will do. — Czello 14:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal for the Greater Manchester clean Air Zone always included all of Greater Manchester (see here: https://www.regit.cars/car-news/manchester-clean-air-zone-charges-map-and-payment-methods-73043). Robert Largan did not campaign for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.5.124 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, came in to say that your edit hatting that weird post must have crossed mine; sorry about that. In case it continues, though, it's coming from Russia and I think he is jeering about the mass shootings. Vandalism if he continues. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I already restored your comment after I saw the scolding. Truly bizarre thread. — Czello 13:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No these are not unreliable sources. wrestleview, bleacher report, 411 mania, solowrestling.mundodeportivo.com have all been listed WP:PW/RS. And sources outside WP:PW/RS such as TMZ can also be used as they are main stream WP:RS. I respect ou as a highly experienced editor but please seek consensus before removing these from John Cena. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it's you who doesn't have consensus to add them - you've now been reverted by two editors. However, to go through these sources:

• Two are from BleacherReport. According to WP:PW/RS, BR Can be used for minor claims such as interviews or match results. Opinions on match ratings clearly don't fall into this.
• WrestleSite doesn't support the claim and is also not listed as reliable on WP:PW/RS, it appears to be someone's wordpress blog.
• One is IMDB. Not only does it not support the claim of it being the best Raw match ever, but WP:RSP lists it as unreliable.
• 411 doesn't support the claim either.
• SoloWrestling says The 50 best matches in RAW history according to WWE.com. It's simply reporting what WWE themselves have said, and so isn't independent.

Pinging @ItsKesha: here for their input too.

— Czello 09:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right Czello' no need to ping him, I accept your point, hardcore Cena fans know that this was the best match in Raw's history and one of the greatest match ever, they do not need Wikipedia for it, and also WP:PW has the propblem of insufficient surces so many important things can't be added anyway. But I will like to mention that on your edit summary you stated I edit warred, which I CLEARLY did not as I made two reverts, did not break WP:TRR so please do not do that again. Anyway I am disheartened by WP:PW editors passion but its OK, the greatness of this match is acknwoledged elsewhere, take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind edit warring doesn't need to be a WP:3RR violation, but thank you for conceding this. — Czello 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you for your feedback on my proposed change! I'm new to WP and drafted the proposed edit in the (possibly misunderstood) spirit of WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY and WP:BLUE. Would appreciate if you could respond in more detail on how we should express the assertions from the sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. Regarding The Miz, I noticed you made this revert of an edit by Shinkazamaturi. I was considering reverting it myself, but I wanted to leave it in the hands of someone much more knowledgeable about the topic, like you. However, I just noticed that there actually is content about Mizanin using the name "The Calgary Kid" in the United States Champion (2009–2010) section, and it is in fact sourced (#79). But I have no idea if it was a one-off type of thing for that event, or if it was used more than that. In any case, I don't know if it qualifies for being in the infobox so I'll defer to your expertise. Thanks. Stoarm (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stoarm, thanks for raising that with me. I've undone my edit and restored the name — Czello 18:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, thanks. Since we're on the topic, can you please educate me on something? When ring names are listed in the infobox for a professional wrestler, should they be displayed in chronological or reverse-chronological order? I looked at several articles for some very prominent pro wrestlers and there doesn't seem to be consistency with how their ring names are listed; some have the first name used at the top and the last name used at the bottom, while others have it the other way around. With some, it's neither; they're in random order. Is there a rule or general consensus on the order they should be listed? Stoarm (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a strict rule on it, I couldn't see anything at WP:PW/MOS. I suspect it's in order of prominence, but that's a bit arbitrary. — Czello 18:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. Stoarm (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]