User talk:Czello

	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;

Oopsie

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]

Why did you undo my edit?

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]

Shane-Miz-Snoop

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]

Page Protections re: Corporate Memphis

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]

WP:AN

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]

RaghuvendraRaghuwanshi

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]

Us-Japan Alliance

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]

New Jersey–Cyprus National Guard Partnership

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]

Martina Navratalova

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]

Suspicious editing

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]

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]

A barnstar for you!

	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]