User talk:Czello/Archive 6

GB News

Explain why you think the referenced sentence of "336,000 viewers tuned in to see the launch of GB News." then? You are just pressing undo because you are being lazy, if you have a problem with one sentence, remove sentence not the whole contribution. So far the only discussion on the talk page relating to Kopparberg is in favour of including it, so if you have an objection it's up to you to add that objection to the talk page. If you don't do that promptly I'll just add in my referenced contributions back in again. Do you work for GB News and want the page to be an advert for them or something? Hstudent (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hstudent: Firstly, I did just remove the one sentence to begin with. The remainder was removed by someone else. The reasons why they were removed were clearly stated in the edit summary -- please read WP:BRD, the onus is on you to take it to the talk page. There is already a discussion going on there so please contribute to it rather than edit warring. — Czello 17:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone else removing an entire contribution doesn't make it correct, especially as another user immediately reverted that edit. You could have left it back in but you insisted on removing it when you clearly don't understand why they removed the entire contribution. It could have been an act of deliberate vandalism by a GB News employee for all you know! Hstudent (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hstudent: Again, please read WP:BRD -- when you're reverted the thing to do is discuss it on the talk page, not edit warring (and especially not accusing other editors of being GB News employees). — Czello 17:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Batley and Spen By-Election

The news media are not covering a candidate announced on 9th May. Following the same formula as Hartlepool byelection. By all means delete for lack of media coverage, but this is to note that 1) a party banned for submitting Annual returns on time 2) not covered in now 3 by-elections, shows that there is some other (intelligence?) conspiracy against English Nationalism. BillCaxton (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@BillCaxton: If you think there's something missing from the article, you can discuss it on the talk page -- but please don't insert your own commentary (and conspiracy theories) into an article. — Czello 20:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is talk page.. here is the proof... 9th May https://twitter.com/BillCaxton/status/1391454975432212488 ... are these not News Media? Local-rags...? What would you do if someone reported unrest in China, and no media was covering it?

@BillCaxton: I meant the article talk page, rather than mine. However, no, a twitter account with 2 followers promoting a conspiracy theory isn't a reliable source. As far as I can tell this is a non-notable party which is why it's not being mentioned by the media. — Czello 20:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@BillCaxton: This is a conversation for Talk:2021 Batley and Spen by-election‎ - please discuss it there. All I'll say is that if you want to include this information you'll need reliable sources and have to avoid original research. — Czello 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Turns out there was local Telegraph & Argus 14 May 2021,noting 'ENGLISH Independence'or 'HANG Murderers'(tba) one of the first candidates.

There is a concerted effort by CZello and DoctorBUK to remove a candidate covered by press. We need a 3rd party to come in. There is no need to cite Independent, if the party was de-registered (unlawfully) that makes the candidate "Independent". The relevant text in the article cited from May 2021, was that in 2016 ByElection all candidates were unfairly labelled as far-right, in order to achieve what Labour wanted~ no major rivals, in spite of itself standing in Eastbourne 1990 ByElection, when Ian Gow was blown up. In addition 2016 ByElection itself was fixed by spending charitable monies for political purposes of libelling candidates indirectly.

You CZello and DoctorBUK seem to be involved in an edit war. You are removing whole sections with no explanation, and at one point DoctorBuk is removing the most relevant refs, only to be followed by you Czello saying no references. Looks like a stitch-up. I WOULD PREFER A 3RD PARTY FIXES DAMAGE. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. This needs an adult. 'HANG Murderers'is cited in the press, so with your political axe to grind, you removed what had been up. You cannot say hey we removed table, when you also deleted Campaign entry ~ that is DECEPTIVE editing. BillCaxton (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't have an election box that excludes a candidate ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCaxton (talk • contribs)

@BillCaxton: The reason we're removing the candidate is because so far there don't appear to be reliable sources confirming he's standing. Also much of the content you've written seems to go against WP:NPOV. Please discuss this further on the article talk page as it'll need involvement from more editors. The other thing I'd say is that right now we don't have an election box at all -- so no one is being excluded. — Czello 08:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Reliable Source is a local newspaper covering the press. You will note DoctorBUK removed that reference,making it appear you are working in collusion. Please bring on an external review of that. Pretending you are removing a table, but hacking away somewhere else. Maybe you both made no Talk prior to hacking away? Maybe it needed pruning. Maybe the election box doesn't deal well with parties with no pages, hence "Independent Politician" was eventually worked out. You guys could have done that, but you have your own hidden agendas. If a candidate is covered by press, these are relevant citations. Especially where 2016 ByElection was 'fixed' using underhand means. That makes these highly relevant in showing UK politics is fiddled. Parties that go missing. Candidates who are never covered, and when they are, their wiki referrals are hacked. NEEDS OVERSEAS IMPARTIAL EDITORS Turns out there was local Telegraph & Argus 14 May 2021,noting 'ENGLISH Independence'or 'HANG Murderers'(tba) one of the first candidates. BillCaxton (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC) So there was a reference (above), and you ignored your Talk page... nothing new there then... all this saying use talk and you never do

Again, Bill, please keep these discussions to the article talk page where everyone can see them. Also myself and Doktorbuk don't have any hidden agendas -- please remember to assume good faith. We're just highlighting the issues with your edits to you. — Czello 09:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Batley and Spen graph

Hey Czello,

I won't dispute your revert, though the by-election I meant was the previous one, where the only main party is Labour. The graph omits this and I'm not sure that makes the graph particularly useful. doktorb _words^deeds 11:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Hi, I deliberately omitted that by-election for that very reason -- it doesn't demonstrate the change in vote share accurately (Labour hit 85% as no other party stood) and I felt that would be misleading to readers. — Czello 11:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Betty Boop

Can I ask why you blanked a WP:RS of an article from Time Magazine on the Betty Boop article? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@197.87.63.222: There's clearly an edit war going on, and your edits have been contested by someone else. I'm reverting to the status quo because it's time for this to be discussed on the talk page (or for the WP:ANI discussion to resolve). — Czello 08:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

?

You have to also move the IWGP Heavyweight Championship because they have more than 70 reigns King Rudra 11:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@King Rudra: Hi, that's fine with me. To be honest I assumed it already had one -- 70 reigns is way too much. I'll split it in the next day or so. — Czello 12:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ohk King Rudra 04:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You I already split on time but in wrong way that's why they reverted it King Rudra 04:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll give it a go later today — Czello 07:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Batley and Spen at the moment

Hey Czello. I have to nip to the launderette in like 5 or 10 minutes so will be away from my screen, hopefully the editing on the article calms down. He's a real problem editor for me and I'm not sure what to do. When I'm back I'll take a look at the article if it needs any more repairing. Good luck with it! doktorb _words^deeds 08:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: I'll do my best! I suspect this might have to go to WP:EWN soon, however. For now I'm encouraging him to take it to the talk page. — Czello 08:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just getting back to all this. It's just dawned on me. When he stood in the original by-election, his name was CORBYN ANTI which only looks like "Anti Corbyn" if printed on a ballot paper surname first. That's why he tried to edit the candidate box so his current name of MURDERERS HANG reads correctly! doktorb _words^deeds 17:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Oh wow that actually makes total sense! — Czello 17:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Czello My Spidey senses are tingling because an IP address over at they Batley page used the initials "LP" alongside "SP1" - the latter must be Sparkle1, the former must be me because our friend BrianCoxton outed me before being blocked (he published my work email address on his talk page and used my real name, initials LP). I don't know, for the time being, if we can do a check on if a blocked user is using an IP address, as there has only been two contributions. But I'm just letting you know, and we may need to be very cautious moving forward. I'm just (re)assuring myself that it'll soon be polling day! doktorb _words^deeds 21:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk:Hi mate, if it's okay I'll email you as he's almost certainly reading this conversation! — Czello 06:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS

Hi. I would like to know why this "manual of style" is not applied to other wrestling articles but only WrestleMania 37? Chocolate Bubu (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chocolate Bubu: Hey, it could be 1) whoever wrote the article simply forgot, or 2) people have removed it from those articles without realising it's part of our style guide. Really any time we see an article without "by pinfall" we should be adding it. — Czello 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Biden template

You and me have usually gotten along well, so I just wanted to tell you straight up why I did what I did, so there are no misunderstandings.

I originally agreed with you that only the POTUS seal should be displayed, but the more I thought about it, the more I came to like the idea of the additional emblems.

Now the emblems I added specifically pertain to the offices/jobs/titles listed across the top of the template, and only if it has a free use image to go with it.

And I even have a specific order by which I add them:

• Federal
• State
• Local
• Misc.

So there IS a method to my madness, and I have a specific criteria by which I insert the emblems, so it's not just me throwing stuff on there willy-nilly - gotta fit within certain boundaries.

Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.

Vjmlhds (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Fair enough, to be honest the main reason I reverted it is because it looked like the other guy was prepared to edit war to have his version up, so I reverted to the status quo to try to dissuade him. That said I don't have any other strong feelings about the design, though it should really go through the talk page. — Czello 16:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll cross that bridge if/when we get to it. There's another reason why I became a convert regarding the emblems...most people don't bother even looking at templates because quite frankly they're boring. So if they're jazzed up a little bit, people would pay more attention to them (come for the sizzle, stay for the steak). Nothing I did affected the nuts and bolts content of the templates, just wanted to make them pop a bit (aesthetics ARE important - not that different from awhile back when we were talking about adding colors to the templates). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

First Past the Post Voting

You have reverted my changes to the FPTP page, even though they reflect fact rather than fiction. The entire page reflects a ridiculous amount of bias flowing from the false presentation of FPTP as if it is a legal or official system. This page should reflect only the etymology and evolution of the terms mis-use, then link to Plurality voting. But if it needs to remain, it should reflect accuracy not the misinformation current present throughout. GregoryMerchant (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@GregoryMerchant: Hi, your edits contained a lot of bias and original research, none of which was sourced. If you want to discuss them further, please do so at Talk:First-past-the-post voting‎. However you should also take a look at this discussion where a similar topic was discussed. You're free to start a new thread to discuss this again, though. — Czello 15:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Czello, as you may have noted i am new to editing. thanks for the link to that discussion I could not figure out the navigation to find it myself.

There is no bias in my edits. They reflect factual information to counter the misinformation and obvious bias throughout the article. Example FPTP is not used in any country. No citation exists wherein it can show a legal document to reflect its use or even existence. The various forms of SMP and plurality to which many people incorrected refer to as FPTP do exist. But thanks, I'll see about figuring out the talk page. How do I cite the non-existence of something?72.140.102.179 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@72.140.102.179:@GregoryMerchant: Well, given that you're up against a lot of sources that say it is in use, you might have a bit of difficulty. However, it could be that this is a case of WP:COMMONNAME -- in that we use whatever the most commonly-used name for something is. — Czello 16:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I don't debate that it is commonly used. The title itself as it is now (FPTP Voting) is false and without citation. Where it is used is without citation. I return to my original premise that the article should be no more than etymology, mention of common usage, and reference to Plurality Voting et al. It seems odd that I am to prove with citation the falsehood of the article's premise wherein in lacks citation beyond the repetition of the term as a reference to SMP voting systems. Thanks.

72.140.102.179 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy

Hi. I think RBut is NonhumanAnimalAutonomy. Same fanatical ways. Same way of speaking and use of the ping template without being told about it. Same OR approach and tendency to create very long posts. Same battleground behavior.

Maybe have a look? 195.226.154.40 (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have much of a stake in the page normally -- I came across the last dispute by chance -- but I'll take a look. — Czello 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Important notice

(no worries at all; I'm currently sending these to as many formally "unaware" people editing in the area as possible, because if a discussion at WP:AE is ever needed, a prior lack of such notifications can be very frustrating.)

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 edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No prob, thanks. — Czello 12:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Metallum

"..two unremarkable bands on social media complaining about it doesn't make it notable." Sounds like someone might belong in Category:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band!

"Teenage goths hate him" — Czello 19:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Title defenses

Defenses are included on the articles for the AEW tag and TNT championships.220.233.73.9 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure when they were re-added but the policy is not to track them unless AEW do (and I don't believe that's the case in their databases). — Czello 13:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of complete section

Hi, May I know the reason for removal of a complete section? Let mw know if the section violates wikipedia guideline for making contribution. I welcome the feedback. Prayag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayagk101 (talk • contribs)

Hi, the other user (Mar4d) who removed it believed there was WP:SYNTH taking place in the sourcing. When you restored the section you labeled his edit as vandalism, which it wasn't -- he raised a valid concern. I think you should start a thread on the article talk page to discuss with him (and other editors) whether the section is appropriate. Cheers — Czello 10:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks chaps, I added a section on the talk page regarding this particular edit. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

David Evans

Hi Czello, based on your edit summary here I'm not sure you reverted what you meant to! Ralbegen (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: Thanks for that -- not entirely sure what I did here. You already beat me to what I was trying to do. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 21:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Adam Cole

Can you stop putting that Adam Cole held the WWE NXT Championship for 396 days? It is televised, and widely acknowledged he held it for 400+ days. I don’t know where you get that 396 but it is incorrect, please have respect for his accomplishment. Chubbybunny60 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chubbybunny60: You're confusing actual days with days recognised by WWE. 396 is the correct number as he lost the title on tape delay. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 14:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: What tape delay are you referring to? If WWE only “recognized” 396 days then while he was the with company, they wouldn’t have let him put out there numerous times, he held the title for 400+ days. Adam Cole is the greatest NXT Champion the company has ever seen, and it will take some doing by another to match what he’s done. Let’s leave it at that, he held the NXT Championship for 403 days. Thank you. Chubbybunny60 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chubbybunny60: No, we don't leave it at that. We show both dates. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 16:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: No, there is no two or both dates. He had one title reign. It began one time, it ended one time, and when it ended it was 403 days. Chubbybunny60 (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chubbybunny60: No, he lost the title before it was broadcast, that's why there's two dates. Wikipedia lists both dates -- if you disagree, please discuss it on the article talk page. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I’m not discussing it any further either with you or on any other article talk page. I know what I know, fans know what they know, the WWE knows what they know, Adam Cole held the NXT Championship for 403 days. Chubbybunny60 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chubbybunny60: That's not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to force your view on everyone else. If you're unwilling to discuss then your edits will simply be reverted. Continuing to force your view would be an edit war and would lead to you being blocked. Now, please engage on the article talk page where I have tagged you. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 18:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

recent changes on conservapedia

Hello @Czello:,

This is regarding the changes I made to the article conservapedia that was reverted by you. the website has multiple articles that has promoted anti-vax BS and the discredited link between vaccines and autism. hence I added the section. Here is the link to a page which sums up all anti-vax nonsense on that website.

I did not revert back to my edit because I didn't want to engage in any kind of edit war. hence please consider restoring my version.

Thank you!2409:4042:4D46:AD2:1486:9C30:CE97:9E12 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@2409:4042:4D46:AD2:1486:9C30:CE97:9E12: Hi, unfortunately your edit included links that we wouldn't consider to be reliable sources. If you take a look at WP:RS you'll see guidelines for what we consider to be a reliable source. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I found another source here from Mark Hoofnagle at ScienceBlogs, can this be considered reliable?

Also this source debunks the nonsense promoted by conservapedia about HPV vaccines. Can it be used? 2409:4042:4D46:AD2:D77:B11D:1F2E:2355 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, the best idea is to post it at the article talk page and ask the wider community. I think sections like that have been removed before so it's probably worth seeing what others think too. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello:, the source ScienceBlogs is already used multiple times in the article, so I think it can be use as a reliable source. And this website lists all the anti-vax theories promoted by conservapedia.

Also I know if we list all scientific inaccuracies on conservapedia the article will end up being very long, as it denies climate change, promotes anti-vax nonsense, denies the dangers/health effects of secondhand smoke, opposes water fluoridation, thinks black hole is a hoax, denies evolution, and the list goes on and on. But the anti-vax nonsense promoted needs to be mentioned just like how it's denial of climate change, evolution is mentioned.-2409:4042:4D46:AD2:7C5A:807E:BC6B:6137 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Alright, then you should also go on speedy deletion for other articles from current champions in other promotions. That's duplication, too. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Once again, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Czello 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule: I preferred your original version. — Czello 17:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A question about a removed section from Vaporware.

Howdy there! Just recently I reversed the removal of a section of the List of vaporware page that detailed Tekken X Street Fighter's situation as vaporware, which was then undone because the linked source in my summary 'doesn't call it vaporware'. The summary source was solely for clearing up a misunderstanding that the game was cancelled, not to contest whether or not the software is vaporware, which has previously been noted as such in earlier versions of the wiki page. If you take a look back, you will see that at one point, the TXSF section was an example of vaporware that was removed due to a misunderstanding and translation error that alluded to the game being cancelled, which was incorrect. (Source to this info Here) The current version without the TXSF section is still withstanding, but with this misunderstanding cleared up, I was wondering if it would be viable to again add Tekken X Street Fighter to the page, as it is a pretty infamous example of vaporware among the fighting game community. If you would like to discuss this a bit further, do not hesitate to hit me up on my talk page.

Cheers! CaptainKodachrome (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainKodachrome: Hi, the problem is that even to list it as cancelled on this page implies that it might have once been vaporware. If the game was removed from the article previously that's probably because there wasn't a source that called it vaporware. The same really applies here: whether or not it's been cancelled, it can only really be listed on the article page if a source actually labels it as vaporware. — Czello 08:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Twozerooz (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

David Kurten

Thanks for reverting at David Kurten – it was my honest mistake to revert to the vandalised version. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: No worries. I actually didn't realise that was a vandalised version as I've only just added the article to my watchlist, so I assumed it was a good faith (though misguided) version. — Czello 19:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Heavy metal requests

On the Heavy Metal template, could you:

• group Djent and Progressive Metalcore under Progressive Metal?
• make a subgroup called Extreme metal and put all fitting genres in it?
• make a subgroup called Metalcore (for Extreme metal) and put all genres that belong?

47.36.25.163 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

You're right. There is something odd going on - when I reverted yesterday both URLs/names worked and I suspected the new one was a scam or fake site. Must be a recent change. Emeraude (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emeraude: Weird, perhaps they're in the process of moving their site to a new URL? I'll check back a few times over the next couple of weeks and make sure it still works (and that the old one remains dead). — Czello 09:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That's the only legitimate reason I could come up with. My original suspicion was based on the spelling in the URL: librtarianpartyuk.net Emeraude (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I saw red over the Keir Starmer article

FWIW. I did not mean to slander you or to flout wikipedia rules for edit summaries. I just got ticked off. I wish I could get rid of the edit summary. I still think the info needs to be added.--Phil of rel (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I don't know what happened. I removed the names from the template, but somehow, they were put again. Magic, I think XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Heh, no worries! — Czello 09:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)