O Archives

User talk:Czello/Archive 1 User talk:Czello/Archive 2 User talk:Czello/Archive 3 User talk:Czello/Archive 4 User talk:Czello/Archive 5 User talk:Czello/Archive 6 User talk:Czello/Archive 7 User talk:Czello/Archive 8 User talk:Czello/Archive 9 User talk:Czello/Archive 10

[1] Looks like AEW has been generous (again). HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that it's another case of tickets distributed vs actual people in the building. Guess we've got to update again! — Czello ^(music) 17:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope nobody tattooed the number this time. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the actual consensus states that neo nazi must remain as part of the first sentence, not that stonetoss should wholy be considered a neonazi

BarakHussan (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarakHussan: Given how much the lead (and other elements of the article) have been subject to long debates and RfCs, and also that adding "alleged" would undermine the result of that RfC, I really don't think it should be added without discussion.

Also I'll point out that I don't believe you're permitted to edit that article – see the arbitration remedies on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 21:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough BarakHussan (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to have an edit war over what is truly an unbalanced presentation? Either remove the bias from the Republican label or be fair about the Democratic label. There is no denying that the party is significantly more left than center-left or the Republican label is overstepping. So, if the pages need to reflect the source page... fix the source page(s) too. Otherwise, you're creating the political turmoil that Dems claim to be against. Cp13579 (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think their positions should change then you need to discuss it on the individual article talk pages. But, to save you some time, I'll say that they have been discussed at length and the consensus is that the Democrats should be listed as "centre-left" and the Republicans should be listed as "centre-right to right-wing". There is no obligation for them to be mirrors of one another – that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Czello ^(music) 12:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to verify real/legal names, birth dates, birth place, categories, background/ethnicity, relationship status, and other similar "living/real" stuff. I have noticed that many IPs and some users change those info and such wrong/flase content remain unnoticed for a long time. Infobox, Lead section, Early life, and Personal life sections are their primary targets. Sometimes category section too. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep an eye out for that sort of thing. I'm concerned about the sourcing on the Adam Cole/Britt Baker break-up, but I haven't had a chance to look into it yet, so that could be a starting place. — Czello ^(music) 15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is most pro wrestlers are not mainstream stars especially the ones who are not WWE personnel. Another issue is those clickbait and awful wrestling websites like Ringside News. They report social media activity of wrestlers as legit news; e.g. Person1 unfollowed Person2, so they are not together anymore. We should be bold. Any unsourced/unreliable/problematic BLP-related content must be removed immediately when we encounter them. --Mann Mann (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Sometimes we're not strict enough enforcing WP:PW/RS, and even what's listed on there could do with a closer look. — Czello ^(music) 06:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dealing with IP-users is typical WP activity. However, some of our fellow editors ignore guidelines too. They don't even read edit summaries and messages. Unfortunately, this is an infinite loop. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you managed to edit my post to template it properly could I ask how you templated it? The source on help says you need to do <source> but I did that and it still didn't work GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all I did was add </ref> at the end. In short you opened the ref by typing <ref name="members"> , but you didn't close it. Every time a ref opens you need to put </ref> at the end to close it up again, otherwise it'll throw up errors.

You might find it easier to use the cite function built into Wikipedia (I certainly do). Basically when you're editing an article you can click the 'cite' dropdown, then go onto 'templates' and pick which one you need. Fill in all the fields and it does the technical bit for you. — Czello ^(music) 15:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. How are you?

I want to talk with you about some topics. So, here we go...

1, I didn't know, but looks like Dave Meltzer was interviewed for Netflix's Mr McMahon series, so maybe we can include it into WP:MELTZER.

2, About Malakai Black, there is a policy about include only the main profession (I don't remember the name). I removed because, even with a MMA background, Malakai has no section for MMA career and he is not refered as MMA fighter.

3, What do you think about this timeline? I think timelines have to be simple, with few colors. This is like a colour salad, with several Kayfabe elements, like sub-factions... HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Agree on this. Another feather in his cap of reliability. As mentioned during the last debate on his reliability, him being used as a source by other reliable sources is a good indication of his knowledge.

2. Fair enough point on that and I think, in hindsight, you're probably right.

3. Urgh, yes it is indeed a mess. So big that I have to scroll to actually see it all. It's entering the territory of being pointless. That said, though, I think an obvious area of improvement is getting rid of the "part-timers" bit. What does that mean, exactly? Are they members, or not? (On that note, I was thinking of proposing to the Wikiproject that we get rid of "associates" for faction articles, but I'll come back to that). — Czello ^(music) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.Hello. Agree, associates are a pain. As always, IPs love to include every bit of information. Looks like other users agree with us. This went to... what do you think about nicknames? Uusally, we have never include nicknames in title histories or results, just a few exceptions (John Bradhsaw Layfield, Andrade Cien Almas, Broken Matt Hardy) but never Jake Snake Roberts, Bret Hitman Hart, Macho Man Randy Savage or Rowdy Roddy Piper. AEW LOVES nicknames, but it's inconsistent. Recently I removed The Glamour Mariah May. An user ask me why, she defeated Timeless Toni Storm. We have Smart Mark Sterling, but no the Bastard Pac, Le Champion Chris Jericho. We have Hangman Adam Page, but no Rainmaker Okada or Native Beast Nyla Rose. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#Curious_edits. 188.4.249.112 (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm familiar with NikolaosFanaris from his edit warring on Greek political articles. Perhaps a check user is in order. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They started to calling them all as members on AEW's Youtube BJavierPR (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to source that; the source you put in was just a summary of All Out and doesn't support them being members. — Czello ^(music) 15:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will. And then if you don't think its ok then delete it. I will start adding things that happened this month step by step. BJavierPR (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable things should be added. Plot summaries or non-notable matches should be eschewed. — Czello ^(music) 15:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well... can you help me add to the article? BJavierPR (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are at end of all paragraphs BJavierPR (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, what are you trying to add? We should keep plot summaries to a minimum – recapping each beat of the story isn't what we're about. Also you don't need to make a new section each time you leave a comment here. — Czello ^(music) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to summaries the plot short and simple. If you could help with some of my delete text from my last full edition, would be great. And sorry for some reason I can't reply without adding the section. BJavierPR (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my reasoning why I believe why Willow Nightingale is not a member of The Conglomeration on the article's talk page. I know some sources have given her member status but they could be mistaken as I really can't find anything outright saying she is a member from AEW. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it on the article talk page. — Czello ^(music) 18:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello,

I noticed that you did a revison on Reggie Roby. He did wrestle one match against Yokozuna in 1993 at the Bodyslam Challenge at USS Interpid in 1993. Kingzwest (talk) 4:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we'll need to source that. I wonder if he qualifies for the article, though. If he's wrestled on match, I'm not sure he can reasonably be called a wrestler (it's not what he's primarily known for). Then again it's all a bit subjective, so I might start a talk page discussion on the matter. — Czello ^(music) 05:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing the issue...you wanted references, I provided them (3 total in fact)

The reference straight from AEW should provide the clearest evidence of all.

I don't get where the "WP:OR" accusation comes from, as I provide reference each time. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your references didn't prove the faction is called the "Jericho Vortex". One of your references just said he'd copyrighted the phrase "for merchandise purposes". That's not proof of anything.

The other, the interview, explicitly calls the faction the Learning Tree!

The 5 Year show source might support your claim that new recruits are "a part of the Jericho vortex", but doesn't call the faction that name.

As I've said multiple times, the faction is explicitly called "The Learning Tree" when they come out as a trio. — Czello ^(music) 14:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What throws a wrench into the works is this...maybe to start the "Learning Tree" was considered the group name, but then Bryan Keith got added in, and everybody got tree pun nicknames ("Redwood", "Bad Apple"), and Y2J began throwing out "Jericho Vortex" more liberally When lots of stuff gets thrown out there, it's easy to see why people think the way they do. This isn't worth going down unwanted roads over, but I came at this with good intentions, and I made sure to bring receipts with me thinking there would be no issues Vjmlhds (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know your intentions were good, but you often jump the gun on these sorts of things. You should take it slower and wait for things to be clearer (like seeing what they're announced as on the way to the ring). The sources you brought didn't actually support what you were saying; the trademark source, for example, doesn't even mention the faction. All it says is that he's trademarked the term. Most importantly, when you're reverted don't revert back; take it to the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Que sara sara and Obla-dee, obla-dah Vjmlhds (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here, yes Harry's edit was not illegitimate in itself, but the principle is that blocked users may be reverted (WP:EVASION). By reverting my edit, I think you risk lending legitimacy to Harry's troublesome behaviour. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's standard practice to revert socks, but I don't think it's constructive to the project to allow (slightly) worse versions of an article to stand in order to deny the blocked user. It's a practice I've never agreed with, personally.

That said, I hasten to add that I mean no dispresect to you (I know having your edit undone can feel like a slight). Ultimately the edit was a correction I'd make if I'd have noticed it even if Harry hadn't have picked up on it. — Czello ^(music) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, and I'm not offended at all. The problem is that occasionally it becomes necessary to revert Harry in bulk, and checking every one of his edits makes the job a very heavy one. If those edits are immediately reinstated by well-meaning users, he'll only be encouraged in his evasions. It seems to me that greater harm to the project is done by encouraging block evaders. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm not sure if you have the roles to do so but can we please make it so only autoconfirmed users and above are allowed to edit the article? I keep having to revert the same edits over and over again. Thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be something for WP:RPP; I can't do that. — Czello ^(music) 06:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I understand. Thank you for the reply nonetheless. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, your old edit on the Antifa (United States) article is being brought up for discussion and seems to be drifting out of control again. Would be nice to get another pair of eyes on it. Just10A (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czello. I have two more questions (both around Jon Moxley). First, the article includes a Lucha de Apuestas, Mox vs Nick Gage, title vs career. Do you recall a discussion around it? I think the project decided to include only mask vs hair, mask vs mask and hair vs hair, no title vs career, since it's not a traditional lucha libre mexicana Lucha de apuestas. Also, there are some articles that includes a achievemtns table. Mox's includes all his titles from GCW, WWE, AEW and NJPW. I don't like these sections, what do you think? I think it's redundant. We have the history section, the C&A section, the navboxes and the categories. Also, there is the criteria problem. I have seen people including WWE, NJPW and AEW titles, why not independent titles? Do you imagine R-Truth's 52 title reigns? Mox has 16 cells (WWE, NJPW, AEW, GCW), but he has 13 reigns as HWA, WXW, CZW and FIP champion, also 19 awards between SI, PWI and WON. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I vaguely remember a discussion on the Lucha de Apuestas, but I can't recall what consensus was reached (I don't think I participated in that discussion).

On your second point, I'm in favour of retaining the championships and accomplishments section – I think it's an appropriate list of data on the subject, and it reflects the sort of thing you get in other sports articles like boxing or MMA. In fact, those articles tend to have even more space dedicated to things like that when you consider that individual bouts are listed.

Personally I would also include independent titles and everything else they've won – if the space gets excessive we can use {{div col}} to split it into two/three columns, or even put it into a collapsable box. However the only thing I'd omit from these sections are things like Elimination Chamber wins. Sometimes they get included, which I tend to remove. HiaC used to get included but I think we did away with those some time ago. I have mixed feelings about Royal Rumble and MitB, generally I think they should be included, along with certain tournaments like Owen Hart/KotR. It's hard to decide where to draw the line, though. — Czello ^(music) 11:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think I didn't explain myself. I'm talking about a table about Achievements [2], not the C&A SECTION. On the external links section, under the links above the navboxes. There is a table called "achievements". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yeah, I see what you mean. That is... very excessive, haha. I'm not sure what that adds givem we also have the navboxes just below, as you say. I think ultimately if someone needed this information they could get it from a "List of XYZ Champions" article. If you were to propose abolishing these at the Wikiproject I'd support it. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped the articles rather than doing the deletion. Given the existence of a closed RM, it seems pretty safe to assume there should be a move discussion before any change in the status quo. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's cool with me — Czello ^(music) 19:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Czello. I just trying to remove the link but Ibrahim reverted my edit. Regards. AmritR012 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say I reverted it again. — Czello ^(music) 20:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Is there a rule where you need to be EC-protected to discuss topics relating to Palestine and Israel on talk pages? that seems to be the reason my edits were removed. Terrainman (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrainman: Hi, yes – see the banner at the top of the talk page which reads WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES — Czello ^(music) 12:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking for my edit. I simply felt the content I removed was not from a neutral point of view. No matter your beliefs, Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox for them. Skyhawk412 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly amazed it had been there for so long without being challenged. Nice one. — Czello ^(music) 15:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratham Kapoor No.1is vandalizing WWE pages and he needs to be stopped. 2603:6011:6224:1800:B543:392C:A1F3:30AD (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]