User talk:Czello/Archive 9

Le Monde is a valid source - Katerinci — Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't currently recognise the Russo-Ukrainian war as a proxy war. This labelling is contentious and will require talk page consensus. — Czello ^(music) 07:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a proxy war, even if you are determined to revert my edits. Katerinci (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need consensus for that. — Czello ^(music) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I broke my glasses today, and was using an inferior pair. I apologize for undoing your correct revert. I get it. Sorry. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the glossary page the hash was changed from "Legit" to "legit", and since hashes are case sensitive #Legit links to a non-existing hash. This means that the link is broken. My edit fixed the link, but for some reason you reverted it back to the broken version which makes absolutely no sense. But maybe you can tell me why you prefer a broken link to a working link. Lerura (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I didn't realise it was lower case in the main article. Relax. — Czello 09:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do we address this? The sources state that Miz-Snoop was done on the fly after Shane's injury, so does it count as one match or 2? Miz-Shane was the plan, Miz-Snoop was the replacement, that is clear. This is a weird situation, and it's not like this kinda thing happens every day, so we don't exactly have a template to go off of. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I think, given the unusual nature of the match, we simply have to go with whatever sources say. From what I can see sources just say Snoop pinned Miz, with no mention of a no contest. — Czello 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. This was just a strange situation all the way around, and I was just looking for a fair way to point out the match was supposed to be Miz-Shane. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I get that, and I appreciate it ultimately though I think we can't interpret the situation beyond anything the sources say. — Czello 07:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As you are a far more experienced editor than I, may I ask what I am doing wrong with asking for semi-protection on the Corporate Memphis page? I made two requests for indefinite semi-protection on account of severe levels of Wikipedia:POVPUSH often by ephemeral IP editors (and sometimes even registered editors) on the page, and both were dismissed by Admins (you can check the recent request for protection page logs for both Admin responses by admins Deepfriedokra and El_C). Also, if you check on the edit history of the Corporate Memphis page itself, as well as the Talk page, you can see the clear level of POV pushing, where users want to remove a certain term that is extant within over half of the sources used on the page. Even if they wish to remove the term from the page, that would invalidate most of the sourcing on the page, necessitating scrapping much of the page itself. I am having difficulty understanding why the page will not even be granted semi-protection, when it probably requires, in actuality, extended protection. Should also note the increase in frequency in which WP:PUS are also added. Thank you! Top5a (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think you've done anything wrong in your protection requests - I would have done the same thing. I don't agree with the reasons for the requests being declined. The problem is this is a low-traffic article, meaning talk page discussion is rather slow. I think all we can do at this juncture is restore the text if it's removed and encourage a talk page discussion per WP:BRD to encourage a consensus. If a consensus determines it should be removed, so be it. I've added the page to my watchlist to help encourage a proper consensus on the talk page. — Czello 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I do not have a dog in this proverbial fight aside from advocating for WP:NPOV and WP:V, but the amount of edit-warring on the page caught my attention. Of note, without me wanting to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, you will notice that a different Admin in the recent changlog removed the contentious part of the article whilst simply stating in their commit "unsourced", having clearly neither made any effort to check the sources, nor to visit the Talk page. So, now this is three Admins who are exhibiting clear bias on this page. The more I dip my toes into Wikipedia, the more I see this. I am hesitant to engage in anything remotely political, as I believe that Wikipedia NPOV processes should theoretically be able to nip most debates in the bud, as there isn't really WP:TRUTH to be had anyway. By the way, I noticed your Sanger userbox, and remember his interviews and writings at the time. Cheers :) Top5a (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Sent another request for protection. Top5a (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined yet again by the heavily politically biased moderators on this website. I do not edit much, but it is almost about time for me to toss in the proverbial towel. Sanger is more correct every day, and I have seen an insane amount of bias especially in my work on Chinese articles, as well. Top5a (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit: if I thought it were a real possibility that I might (or might be perceived to) cause disruption on MOSBIO by discussing GENSEX topics, I would not have filed for the limited exception (and I spent a full week in discernment before doing so). WP editing is a privilege, and I value that privilege too much to risk it even to contribute to a limited domain where my participation to date has been all-gain, no pain for the project. I am confident that the one month is enough time to establish new habits, as long as I monitor myself.

Also, please see the explanation I provided to Kolya at my Talk - I get that I haven't communicated well, but my reply was intended to address the substance of what you said (which doesn't correspond to my contribution history on policy pages, AFAICT), and wasn't intended as a comment about your word choice. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PAs [1] [2] were posted by RaghuvendraRaghuwanshi. The one you mentioned may be a sock/meat. See: wp:AN3#User:RaghuvendraRaghuwanshi reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) Cheers! Adakiko (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I strongly suspect it's a sock. — Czello ^(music) 12:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I just deciphered that username you reported to AIV. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Czello ^(music) 12:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the map that i have posted ? that will help those who don't know where those two countries are situated, especially Americans people and kids.

Also i want to further add that most page that talk about a military alliance and a treaty have map in them, like the nato page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO or the Collective Security Treaty Organization map or even AUKUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS Bourenane Chahine (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD. When reverted you shouldn't edit war to restore the contested material; instead it's time to engage on the article's talk page. I see you've started a thread - you should wait for the other user to reply. — Czello ^(music) 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it's better not put a map like that there. by the way i are you stalking my page or what ? why are you viewing my work ? Bourenane Chahine (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did look through some of your contributions to see if there were similar issues with images, as I notice you've created a few. — Czello ^(music) 09:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The stable version is from 7 April not the version you have reverted to please go back to the stable version and not the version which is from 17 April. The noise of the current versions needs to be ignored and it needs to be gone back to before the changes were made on 17 April. The stable version clearly form 10 days is from 7 April not the Fyunck(click) of 17 April (potentially 16 April depending on your timezone) Sparkle1 (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a BLP article we should be vigilant in restoring contentious material, see WP:BLPRESTORE — Czello ^(music) 09:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is heavily well-sourced the removal of this well-sourced information is contentious. I am fully aware of BLP and the version you have reverted to is the potential BLP violation not the other way round. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing contentious material can never be a BLP violation; we should be careful introducing criticism/controversies into BLP articles. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is only contentious in the eyes of those trying to hide that Navratilova is a Gender Critical anti-trans activist. The information is true and the removal is washing out and sanitising which is a continuous thing not the inclusion of true and well-sourced information that another editor dislikes. You have this arse about face. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask you to look a lot more closely at the version you are claiming is the stable version as you should see the final sentence of the lede has now got no sources. This is a clear BLP violation and I would hope this is something you are planning on correcting as unsourced BLP sections of 'contentious' topics are a big no-no. So please be more careful in the future than simply hitting the button without looking at the content. Not everything is as simple as you are making out especially when sources reliable sources at that such as The Independent and Forbes are being removed simply to hide information being reported in them. I strongly suggest you correct this clear BLP violation. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just for informational purposes as you are now all of a sudden editing the page of Martina Navratilova and are behaving on a way to exclusively back up a specific user including reverting to their preferred version and the edits you have made on the talk page. I am very suspicious of the reopening of the discussion you have just done and I am highly suspicious that you have all of a sudden jumped in having never edited as far as I can tell the Martina Navratilova page before to be someone who is now editing it in a way which mirrors another editor. I am happy for you to explain away the suspicions you have generated. This is not an attack as I am hoping there is an innocent explanation for this. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF - if there's a particular accusation you're making, I'd prefer you to be clearer about what it is. Sockpuppetry? — Czello ^(music) 10:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGF was assumed in the above interactions but that vanishes when there is the pattern of behaviour of identical reverting, and editing of a page never edited before to do nigh on identical edits as another editor. he revert also conveniently getting around the 3RR rule the other user was up against. Someone AGF has evaporated here and was clearly assumed by interacting here. So please don't play puppy-eyed and innocent. I feel your response is trying to treat me as a complete mug. Please try again. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep screaming into the void about this if you like, but ultimately all that happened is that you got reverted by two editors. It's not that deep. — Czello ^(music) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for bringing logic to the discussion. I appreciate you doing that. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is very kind of you — Czello ^(music) 13:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please assist me in trying to make the Pellegrino page more objective. A single negative review when so many positive reviews exist is wrong, especially considering "Her Name, Titanic" by Pellegrino became an international bestseller, but that is not even permitted on the page. In fact, none of Pellegrino's positive contributions are, due to a troll that monitors the page and gets everyone banned that tries to point of the fact that Pellegrino is credited by Dr. Ballard for the Downblast theory in the international bestseller "Discovery of the Titanic" (whom Pellegrino sailed with in 1985 in the Pacific), being credited by Michael Crichton for inspiring his novel "Jurassic Park," having interviewed double survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki which James Cameron is preparing to direct a movie about, furthering the theory that Santorini may have been Plato's Atlantis, among many others. Thank you. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if there are legitimate concerns you have with the article you should discuss them on the article's talk page rather than edit warring. Continuing to delete the content without consensus is just going to result in a block. If you start a thread there and talk about your concerns in details I can address them there. The first review that I removed I believed was unjustified. The rest of the content appears to be justified, but I'd open to hearing your thoughts at Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino — Czello ^(music) 07:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look and think we're dealing with block evasion of Cameron Houseman. Please notify me if you see it continuing through semi-protection or afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, will keep an eye out. — Czello ^(music) 08:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello, unfortunately an IP has been vandalizing your talk pages on other wikis with genocide denial material and posting it in a way that it looks like you are posting it. See [1],

They previously targeted me (on 221 talk pages), I alerted two stewards that helped me clean up the IP vandalism @Superpes15:, @Styyx:, hopefully they will be able to fix this like they helped me.

Sorry to drop this unpleasantness on you, Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  14:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the message. I did notice it and found it rather bizarre. I've encountered a few nationalist editors in the past few weeks, so I'm unsurprised if this is some weak form of retaliation. — Czello ^(music) 14:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good times - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could I forget? What a classic. — Czello ^(music) 22:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute over restoration of revision. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Aryan race".The discussion is about the topic Aryan race.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--WikiLinuz {talk} 21:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the rational for reverting my edit on Fascism in popular culture'. It is a perfectly valid addition to the topic. If Woody Gutherie's observations are valid so are other popular culture sources. Norwikian (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC) Some source material for you re:Fascist groove thing[reply]

Scottish post-punk band The Fire Engines covered the song for a 23 February 1981 Peel session on BBC Radio 1.

German dark wave project Deine Lakaien featured a cover on the 1999 CD Maxi "Into My Arms" (as "(We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thing").[11]

American indie rock band Poster Children covered the song on their 2004 EP On the Offensive.

American synth-pop band Information Society covered the song in 2016 for their album Orders of Magnitude. It was remixed by Inertia and The Crusher for the DEF CON 24 music compilation that same year, featuring multiple voice samples of American president elect Donald Trump.

American post-punk band 100 Flowers covered the song in 2017 for release as a digital single.

American rock band LCD Soundsystem released a cover of the song on 2 November 2018 and included it in their live album Electric Lady Sessions (2019).[12]

Philadelphia punk rock band The Dead Milkmen released a cover August 21, 2020 on a limited-release 7", with proceeds to benefit the charity Girls Rock Philly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwikian (talk • contribs)

What I was asking for a source for was the statement, criticism of the newly- elected Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. — Czello ^(music) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also advise you against restoring the disputed content, as the page is under a WP:1RR restriction. — Czello ^(music) 12:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently active in Talk:Numbeo and Numbeo and we want cleaning up of the page ASAP to present Neutral Point of View. Could you please join new discussions. Thanks Mladen.adamovic (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. How do you do? Would you please add Sareee to your watchlist? An static IP user has started to disrupt it since 30 April. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've added it and also requested page protection. — Czello ^(music) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I understand your good intentions, but I revoked your edit and explained the reasons in full in the discussion section of that page. thank you Mitrayasna (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep it on the talk page until a consensus emerges. From what I can see you've been reverted by 3 separate editors now. Given that you have a report against you at WP:EWN, continuing to edit war isn't good. — Czello ^(music) 15:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I have returned to a copy edited by others. I have reverted to a version of the edit that has already been accepted Mitrayasna (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you deleted some places that didn't cite enough reasons to be added in this article. And since I don't want to go back to the "edit-war" problem, I ask for your help so that the user understands the function of this article, and that it is not because he believes that his country's city is relevant, it should be added there. Since he added the city again and with citations that clearly don't justify it being added there. Vasltunnma (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. I was thinking about the names of Wrestling events for a long time. Maybe, you want to start a discussion to include the name of the promotion. While there are easy names, like Summerslam (2010) or Survivor Series (2010), there are articles with names that can be confused. For example, Departure (2004), Destiny (2005) or No Way Out (2006). Other articles include something to explain the article besides the year, like No Way Out (1987 film), No Way Out (1950 film), Destiny (2018 film), Destiny (2006 film), Departure (1938 film), Departure (1931 film) (somehow, I should know Destiny 2005 is a pro wrestling event held by NOAH, not a movie or a music album). Pro wrestling events just include a year with no other definition, which I think breaks the point of disambiguations. There is nothing like WWE No Way Out (2006) or No Way Out 2006 pro wrestling event --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point - in hindsight, the point of a disambiguation is kind of lost in the examples you give. Perhaps we should restart the discussion on the Wikiproject and try to find a way that works across all PPV titles. — Czello ^(music) 09:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the discussion of COI tag of Priti Adani removal you have recently took part. As you requested the editor who had added COI tag to share his views, so as to remove the COI tag. Its 8 days now the concerned users have remained silent and have not shared his views. I completely believe the COI tag is completely not justified and already shared my view in the discussion. Hence I would request you to kindly consider removing the COI tag from the article as the COI tag remined for quite a very long time now. Thanks Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they haven't replied after being given a chance. I'll remove it. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable reply. On the same day, the same user added one more COI tag to my contributed image. I shared my views there as that the COI tag is completely not justified for that page . Referring to the discussion of COI tag of Karan Adani

Requesting you to kinldy review the same and consider the necessary actions to remove the COI tag from that page. The COI tag is also remaining on that page for a very long time. Thanks Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this should perhaps be merged into the main History of WWE article like the New Era article? While it's true WWE calls 2014-2016 the Reality Era, a common public perception is that we're still in the PG Era (given all the "WWE is leaving the PG Era" rumor articles in 2019). Many fans think of the Reality and New Eras as marketing gimmicks and that it's still the PG Era ever since the TV-PG rating and switch to HD in 2008. 204.111.198.147 (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I 100% do. However when I tried to start a deletion discussion for it the result was no consensus. If another deletion discussion is started (or a merge discussion on the talk page) I'll gladly contribute. — Czello ^(music) 07:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And search the internet for the countless stories by reliable news sources in the German press, this story is growing. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the following news story here: Neue Vorwürfe gegen Rammstein-Sänger Till Lindemann | tagesschau.de . StrongALPHA (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, thanks. I appreciate the story is growing but we need to be careful about allegations on a BLP article. I've notified WP:BLPN and will defer to their expertise on how to go about this. Cheers! — Czello ^(music) 10:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2]: "There may be validity to excluding this source, but as removal has been challenged it'll need to be discussed either on the talk page or (ideally) at WP:RSN" - how come? 99% of the time editors have to prove the reliability of a source, not its unreliability, and so far RadioactiveBoulevardier did not provide any arguments other than it being published by Routledge (which is good but by itself does not make a source reliable). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been trying to research whether or not this author is considered reliable by our standards. There's nothing definitive I can find, but I did find this discussion. While it doesn't mean he's outwardly disqualified, another editor does raise similar concerns. To play it safe I think you might be right in that it's better to exclude the source for now (especially when there are plenty of other sources attached to that sentence). I'll self-revert. — Czello ^(music) 11:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few days back you have taken part in the discussions and removal of COI tag from Priti Adani Page. On the same day, the same user who added COI tag in Priti Adani page added one for COI tag to Karan Adani Page just after I contributed the infobox picture. I shared my views there as well that the COI tag is completely not justified for that page. As you a very senior editor I am requesting you to kinldy review the same and consider the necessary actions to remove the COI tag from Karan Adani Pagepage. The COI tag is also remaining on that page for a very long time. Below is the discussion link COI tag of Karan Adani Thanks Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. It being there since September without any further discussion makes me think it's stale anyway. — Czello ^(music) 07:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to double check your thread there, there appear to be formatting errors. — Czello ^(music) 13:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's not even showing up for me, so i have no idea how to proceed.

formatting could not be added in wizard. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a subsection under the Iran/Russia thread. If you un-collapse everything at the bottom you should be able to see it. I think it'll need a new header to separate it (or maybe the collapse box doesn't have have an end tag to it). — Czello ^(music) 14:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[rhetorical] why is this the default way "request dispute resolution" files things. makes no sense. thanks for pointing it out. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix it, way too much work, you need to start afresh. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lord take me now Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it has been fixed by someone else, you can now contribute. Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to take this to GA status. Would appreciate your feedback and comments. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. How are you? I want you opinion. Recently, I read the List of National Wrestling Alliance personnel. While it's common for notable promotions to include a roster page... I don't know if the NWA Roster is even notable. There are barely no sources. Most of the wrestlers are unsourced or just mentions of them working on NWA show, but not being hired by NWA. [3] A list of matches? [4] A facebook announcement? [5] A youtube match? NWA website doesn't have a roster section [6]. What do you think, should I AfD the article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not a great article. It looks like one of those where it could probably be salvaged, though. I think I'd probably consider asking at WP:PW if anyone wants to help bring up the quality of sources (though, if I'm being brutally honest, I doubt it'd get much attention). — Czello ^(music) 21:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...about the wrestling, BTW. EEng 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I assume we won't agree on it, but hey - who cares. It's only Wikipedia. Here, have a beer 🍺 — Czello ^(music) 08:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as soon as I knock you over the head with a folding chair. EEng 09:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the referee would would disqualify you for that, but I just noticed someone else has told the ref. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Let's be real here. What I don't get is why you're trying to back him up. SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SkylerLovefist: Edits like this aren't helpful. You've been blocked for personal attacks before, so I'd advise that you retract that. If you're confident you'll pass the SPI, just wait for an admin. You've made 5 different comments already (not counting ones to me and Vjmlhds) which isn't a great look. — Czello ^(music) 08:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Doesn't address what I said at all, but OK. I'm absolutely 100 percent correct that Addicted is doing this out of spite because I won't be bullied by him and I've made that clear. I'm amused at how "this isn't a good look for me," yet you and HHHPedrigree are totally cool with violations of WP:PERSONAL. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to talk to you directly, as commenting on the ANI page would just be beating a dead horse. I saw some of the stuff Skyler said to other editors (including you) - some of it is harsh, and it was the first time I saw a lot of it. I tried to stick up for Skyler because he had my back on a lot of stuff, and I felt he was getting a bit of a raw deal (on the surface any way). But if indeed he was socking - which I had no idea about prior to the SPI (and I was unaware of even the SPI until Skyler told me about it a couple of days ago) then that is a no-no. I very much used to be a "shoot first, ask questions later" cowboy around here (with the block log to prove it), but age, wisdom, and scars have convinced to pick my battles more carefully. I'll still let people know if they're giving me a raw deal, but these days, I try not to shoot flies with an elephant gun. Not blaming you for what happened with Skyler...if he was doing stuff he wasn't supposed to do, then it is what is is. Like I said in the ANI, I didn't think you had an issue personally with Skyler, which is why I didn't glom on to that line of attack. So don't worry about me trying to fight a battle that wasn't/isn't my own. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have no beef with you. I think you contribute a lot to the project. Ultimately I find Skyler relished getting into fights, and not just against Addicted. Even if the SPI had found he was innocent his general attitude was going to lead to this kind of outcome. Anyway, hopefully there will be less drama now and we can all get on with the regular business. — Czello ^(music) 07:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that your ANI on Damolisher/Skyler contributed in a major way to Ninja Robot Pirate going to the SPI and seeing exactly what you pointed to originally and that I used as the core evidence - and blocking him rightly. I will say that if I did do anything wrong (and I don't think I did) it was under provocation. Heck, when I made my comment on the Impact personnel talk page after my wikibreak I actually said that if he replied to me he'd prove me right - and he did reply and proved me right. It took all of my self control to stop myself from crowing a response. He was trouble and it is a good thing that he is gone. I do intend to revisit the referees issue at some point, but not straight away as that would be what's called gravedancing. I do know that there are similarly sourced referees on the WWE personnel page which I am about to remove now. I'd give you an award but I can't find the way to give you a round of applause. Again - thanks very much. We got rid of a rotten apple that was spoiling the barrel. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, ultimately it was your SPI report that got it done, so good work in spotting the similarity between Skyler and Damolisher. I don't think you ever did anything wrong - he was continually aggressive and you never stooped to his level. Hopefully we can get a better standard of sourcing across our articles now. — Czello ^(music) 07:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information that Bandera was in a concentration camp from 1941 to 1944, because there is a classic manipulation of information. The fact is that the fact that Bandera was in a concentration camp does not mean at all that he and his supporters did not commit war crimes. Bandera is the ideological inspirer of the Volyn massacre and the murder of hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews. Bandera ended up in a concentration camp because he violated Hitler's order and declared the independence of Ukraine. That is, two Nazis did not share the sphere of influence and power, and one Nazi, Hitler, put another Nazi, Bandera, in a concentration camp.

As I mentioned in the message I posted on your talk page, please discuss this on the article talk page here Talk:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. — Czello ^(music) 18:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user for 24 hrs for edit warring. However, I need to caution that you also were edit warring. Please tread carefully when reverting. 3RR applies to anything other than naked vandalism, copyright vio and serious BLP violations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware - you'll notice I self reverted when I realised. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spain follows Italy.In Afghanistan Spanish troops were below Italy.79.23.193.41 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what the sources say, not personal interpretation. — Czello ^(music) 10:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Spain are not sufficient to be a regional power.79.23.193.41 (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here since the article talk page in such flux. Are you sure that the controversy section is warranted with just the Yahoo-aggregated NextShark source. As discussed previously, the sourcing out there is pretty light and sketchy. Incidentally, the "New York State Supreme Court" bit is unsourced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind self-reverting on the the main page. I can see from the article history that it was initially removed by the same sock (who I assume might be the subject), but if the section itself is flawed I don't mind it going. It could be a case where it needs to be reworked before being re-added. — Czello ^(music) 20:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Czello Can you suggest me whether I can use this as a reliable source for stating that they met at the gym? [7]https://firstsportz.com/wwe-raquel-rodriguez-boyfriend/ UrsulakLeGuinbot (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's probably fine. — Czello ^(music) 14:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been to the talk page. Would you like to read what I've said? Cheers Aubernas (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate this since you've reverted my edits and I need to gain consensus - nobody's replied so far to my section. I hope you'll find I've made a good case for this. Aubernas (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the cleanup in the High Concept article I just edited some time ago. I'd suggest though that article of Hollywood Reporter I cited with "Designated Survivor", also mentions two series: "Son of Zorn" and "The Good Place", but I didn't add the cite since it'd be citing the same article thrice. Should we add those series back or should I look for other sources to add them back. I also wanna look for other sources of the other series being mentioned as HC so the article looks good (I actually was the one who added citations to some movies/shows)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so it'd be great help on sorting out those kind of issues. Thanks! Hyperba21 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Would love your input on this discussion on timelines in tag team articles. Thanks :) Sekyaw (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for keeping an eye on the All In-related articles whilst I made my way back up north from London! Honestly, I don't get this factional warfare bollocks; can't we all just enjoy the best boom period for the industry since the Attitude Era? Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Appreciate it. — Czello ^(music) 22:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Use of hash sign in summaries. Thank you. This notice is just to let you know I cited your post on my talk page in what I wrote. Please don't feel any pressure to add anything to the thread. KyleJoan^talk 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it has bee disused here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_32#Attendance_Figure_and_Dave_Meltzer%27s_lack_of_Neutrality_on_WM_32 and others here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#How_does_WWE_Count_Attendance. I am going to set WM 3's attendance to a range 78,00-90,000+ because like the higher 90,000 figure is disputed by Meltzer loyalists, the 78,000 lower attendance is also disputed and deserves a disputed tag as it is disputed by WWE loyalist. So I suggest a range instead. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: Please do not' make any more changes to attendance without consensus. You've been warned about edit warring already. — Czello ^(music) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello Please check WrestleMania 3 talk page, and do you honestly believe dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer is above New York Times? I believe the best solution at this point is to use range. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I check my computer and I found that Wrestlenomics (maybe the catch up the discussion) posted a video about WM 3 [8] [9] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will give this a watch when I have a chance. — Czello ^(music) 20:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello Even tho I am giving up on the WrestleMania 3 article, (reasons given on WM 32 article), but using NYT source is in no way non neutral, please do not make misleading claims, those who review the edits can judge, anyway bro do whatever you want, this history revisioniom will only tarnish Wikipedia and just when people were starting to respect Wikipedia people would go back laughing at it as unreliable again, no wonder Wp:PW is under Wp:GS, anyway bro nothing personal and I understand your hard works you are a great e3ditor but are blinded by this misleading cancer of the wrestling world called Dave Meltzer. I hope you realize Meltzer's flaws someday (like the 2014 false claim Punk was coming back), but right now you guys blidnly follow him and disregard every other WP:RS, anyway i respect your contributions in vast majority articles and you are a great editor, but what happened to Wm 3 and WM 32 article due to you guys following this disgraced Dave Meltzer is wrong sadly, anyway wish you well, good day! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"this misleading cancer of the wrestling world called Dave Meltzer." Again, just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czello. First of all, thanks for your help with the Skyler case. I could thank you before due to the summer and the work, which is pretty exausting.

About the WM issue, maybe we should ask to people outside the project. Looks like a desd end and i like people outside the project with new eyes. The problem is simple, a primary source from a promotion against a tertiary source HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. When I started the initial discussion I did link to it at WP:NPOVN in the hopes of getting people who have less of a vested interest in WWE's numbers engaged. Not sure how many joined, but it could be worth us starting a new thread there if there's too much of a slant towards kayfabe numbers. — Czello ^(music) 14:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you dont know, but Batista had a problem a few months ago. An admin questioned the billed height parameter. asked why are we including a fake parameter if he isnt that tall. i think people outside the project will agree to include independent numbers.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, no. But yeah, I'd probably agree with the admin. I guess WP:NPOVN might be the best place to get more input, but maybe there's better places too? — Czello ^(music) 20:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the report where the Dyad boys do indeed appear to be gone. Would have been nice if there was an edit summary stating so to begin with, that would have cut down on the confusion. Them still being on the WWE.com roster is probably just a matter of them doing some housekeeping. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, cheers. — Czello ^(music) 18:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. The user 'Pedantic Aristotle' has put that the Renewal Front political party has a 'Peronist fascist' ideology. Absolutely none of the sources provided by this user mention that the Frente Renovador has a 'fascist Peronist' ideology. Uniru288 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something to discuss on the talk page of the article - my revert had nothing to do with that label, and only on the "centre-left" label. — Czello ^(music) 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. How do you do? Would you please add these articles to your watchlist? It is too much for me to deal with all of them.

• Piper Niven - It is prone to BLP violations like this.
• Toni Storm - It needs some attention. The article could be full of original research or fancruft materials. I don't edit or watch it anymore so another editor better takes the action.
• Mandy Rose, Sonya Deville, Liv Morgan, Candice LeRae - Targeted articles by BLP violators.
• Kairi Sane - Too much unsourced edits, original research and fancruft stuff after her return to WWE at Crown Jewel (2023).

Thanks. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Will keep an eye on them. — Czello ^(music) 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello:

You reverted my edit of the Hijab article. Please be so kind as to read an edit BEFORE you revert. I suggest that you read my comment in the Hijab Talk Page. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

I read it, but you were edit warring against several editors. Please see WP:BRD and WP:QUO - when there's a dispute you should discuss on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. — Czello ^(music) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm writing in response to your reversion of my edits which Tad Lincoln was disputing ([10]). You wrote in the memo, "there is clearly opinion / PoV language here, discuss on talk please."

Is your issue stylistic, or something more substantive? That is to say, could it be fixed by a bit of rephrasing, or is it something more fundamental-- like that I'm clearly going out very far on a branch without providing evidence (or something like that)? FaulDog (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, starting sentences with "clearly", calling things an oxymoron, or using words like "presumably" indicates PoV. I wouldn't just reinstate the info and removing these words either -- ideally, each sentence should have an accompanying citation that supports what you're saying. Much of what you've written appears to be drawing a conclusion, rather than saying what sources say. — Czello ^(music) 00:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps I'll go back and edit more carefully. (I might still argue that even my "PoV" content was a marginal improvement to the article, but I suppose that's neither here nor there if it's policy to simply get rid of "PoV" content categorically.)

In any case, I appreciate your actually explaining yourself. 'Tad Lincoln' (the one you flagged me for calling a "dipshit") never offered any sort of explanation for his (I assume 'Tad' is a he) repeated reversions. He initially provided no justification at all, then when pressed he declared high-handedly that, "Personal opinion and speculation does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Please review the manual of style." (Note both how he presents his opinion as incontrovertible fact and how he implicitly acts as if it's my job to comb through the manual of style to try to guess at what the hell he's referring to.) Then he doubled down with, "Once again reverting opinions that do not belong in article." I complained on his talk page that he wasn't even attempting to justify these pronouncements, and then he reported me for "edit warring" (and possibly for calling him a rude name?).

Is there a way for me to report him for just, like, being an ass? I really don't think his behavior was appropriate. Presumably there's some deeper personality issues there or whatever, but in any case I think the actual log of his actions on Wikipedia sort of speaks for itself.

Thanks,

Nate FaulDog (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and more of the same in the reply he left on my Talk page:

"Hello, I'm Tad Lincoln. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are also in violation of the three revert rule. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

Note that he continues to ignore my request for him to explain himself, instead preferring to lecture me on what he presumes Wikipedia policy to be. His saying, "If you have any questions, you can leave me a message..." seems disingenuous too, as by this point I'd already made clear I wanted an explanation, and when I took him up on this offer to reply on his talk page, again requesting an explanation, he never responded, but only reported me.

As for fuzzier matters of "tone" or "attitude," note he always states his opinions/feelings as objective facts, implying an attitude of infallibility: someone who criticizes him is obviously just "lashing out" etc. and he distains to stoop to their level by even engaging them. Because of course he's always right and if I'm angered by something he's doing, then obviously I'm completely off-base and deserve no account. Apparently all I deserve is to be lectured to and punished like a naughty child! And though I suspect I've ruffled his feathers (i.e. I suspect that our dispute became at least a little "personal" for him!), he continues imply that his behavior is nothing more or less than right and proper. That is to say, even though he is surely at least a little motivated by anger at this point, he makes not the slightest admission of that fact: the very definition of "passive-aggression"!

So my bottom line is again that I don't think Tad's behavior becomes a Wikipedia editor. Certainly as a personal note, this was my first ever editing attempt, and my interaction with him has really left me disgusted and angered with the process of contributing (or in any case attempting to contribute).

Regards,

Nate FaulDog (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. Thank you for your work on AEW Continental Classic. User:Seawolf35, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice Job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Seawolf35}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Seawolf35 (talk - email) 18:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, czello. How are you? I want some feedback about The Nexus. For years, I have been made the same edition. People change the charge of Barrett and Punk to Original and New Leader. However, I change back to first and second leader. What do you think? I mean, Punk can't be the new leader 12 years after the stable disbanded. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "new" is too relative a term to use so long after the fact. Numbering them seems more encyclopedic anyway. I'll take a look at the article when I get a chance — Czello ^(music) 11:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, maybe you want to have a few words with [11] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I wonder who I annoyed this time so badly that they had to create an account after me thanks, I'll report it — Czello ^(music) 09:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, given most of their edits are on Impact I think I have a pretty good idea... — Czello ^(music) 09:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, i didn't think so... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: We now have confirmation it's our old friend.[12] There was another one where they mentioned Addicted, but the admins revdel'd that. I guess he's very upset he got caught. — Czello ^(music) 16:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also racist. What a nice person. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now [13]

@HHH Pedrigree: I've started an SPI thread here — Czello ^(music) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frozen conflict zones has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An essay created by you is being attacked, with insulting language directed at the creator: ("Rewrite -- this was VERY poorly written (it reads as if it was written by a second grader).") I don't think the changes are real improvements. Although you don't own the essay, unlike if you had kept it in your userspace, you might want to participate in discussions at Wikipedia talk:We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up — Czello ^(music) 09:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm thinking about Rey Mysterio's lead. I think we can do it better. Right now, it's just like "these are the promotions, these are the titles he won". For example, I can't find the Eddie Guerrero-Rey Mysterio match at Halloween Havoc, being unmasked by Nash and many other key elements of him. Do you want to improve it with me? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply. I'll definitely take a look, but if I'm being honest I'm finding less and less time to edit Wikipedia, so I can't promise anything major — Czello ^(music) 09:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please cease interacting in bad faith and inserting your POV while accusing me of doing the same. Your cooperation is appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.163.183 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're inserting non neutral wording into a contentious topic. Please discuss it on the talk page before edit warring further. Thank you! — Czello ^(music) 07:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your reply at the CFD on Frozen conflict zones and have now replied back. I think you're pointing out that I had not originally responded was reasonable, although tagging me would have helped too. In the discussion overall though, you may want to review WP:BLUDGEON to make sure that conversation stays constructive. All the best! - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across your work several times now, I just wanted to thank you for your service against historical revisionism on Wikipedia. from one gnome to another, may you have a blessed day! Manumaker08 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate words like that. Yes, historical revisionism is an increasing problem on Wikipedia, particularly (as your userbox says) from tankies. Thank you for your hard work, too! — Czello ^(music) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my post about shotzi, it's the truth, you can find articles all over the internet about it Wikivisitor2022 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per my edit summary the sources you cited aren't considered reliable. You can find a list of reliable/unreliable sources at WP:PW/RS and WP:RSP. Cheers! — Czello ^(music) 23:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the abruptness of my reply, I have taken the steps to fix it Wikivisitor2022 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ey. also, remember WP:BLP about privacy. if the partner is not notable, we should not include the name for privacy reasons. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% — Czello ^(music) 18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Czello,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I am going to take a bit of a risk here and show a little bit of vulnerability that I would honestly rather not. I am posting this to your personal talk page rather than the Stonetoss talk page because I would prefer to minimize the visibility of these comments to WP:NOTHERE third parties. I would kindly ask that we keep this discussion rather low-key for the moment.

I spent last week facing a vexsome wave of harassment by far-right figures upset that I was working to preserve the references to StoneToss' politics in Wikipedia. This involved me being tagged daily by purpose-built accounts that bypassed regular blocks using VPN to post vulgar insults and vague threats about me all over this website. Clearly all these accounts were WP:NOTHERE.

Now I should note that, for all their threats I didn't feel in personal danger because their claims to be able to dox me got significant information about me flatly wrong. But this doesn't change that this is the consequence of editing for neutrality in articles about living neo-nazis.

Now links back from Wikipedia to the websites of neo-nazis increase the visibility of Wikipedia pages about these subjects to their audience. So when you argue that we need to include these links out of some sort of vaguely defined neutrality (which I would vehemently disagree with notwithstanding my personal stakes) you are saying that being "stoically" neutral about neo-nazis is more important than the literal security of your fellow collaborators in the space.

I will assume that this never even occurred to you and am certainly not suggesting that your argument for inclusion here is for the purpose of making me and other editors in the space more vulnerable to harassment. But I do want you to consider that there are other human beings on this project and we should not be put in a position where people try to threaten us away from work on the project. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this comment, and indeed I will keep this low-key. I can also archive it from my talk page whenver you desire to minimise its visbility – just say the word.

I fully understand your position, and you have my sympathies being targeted by online neo-Nazis. Even if they failed to do so, that must have been difficult for you and I'm sorry you had to go through that. I actually have been doxxed because of my editing on Wikipedia – also by a right wing individual. It was only one person and ultimately had no major consequences, but it was unpleasant nonetheless.

However, I feel that we ultimately won't agree where neutrality here is concerned. Neutrality for me is being stoic and removing emotion from the decision-making. It would be treating the article in question the same as we would if it were centrist or left wing. It is a central pillar of Wikipedia. In fact, I'd argue that it's a WP:STREISAND situation where excluding the link would be more likely to attract them, whereas not making exceptions gives them less to be incensed about. It's one thing when we call him a Nazi, which would aggrevate his fans, but I don't see how including an external link would do the same; excluding it makes that more likely. — Czello ^(music) 12:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you might expect from someone who is well-read in classical and contemporary philosophy and cleaves strongly materialist I do contend that neutrality must necessarily contend with unbounded material conditions rather than remaining an idealist goal. I'd also argue that reason, in the enlightenment sense of the word, is, in fact, an emotional affect. Which is a long way of saying you are likely correct that we do have different ideas about what constitutes neutrality in this circumstance. However I will also contend that both of us do care about neutrality as a pillar of Wikipedia even if we are approaching it from different philosophical perspectives. Please go ahead and archive. I do thank you for this brief conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]