About what you said regarding the Karl Anderson pic...that theory can actually be applied to ANY source on Wikipedia, be it in text or in pictures. Isn't ANY source on Wikipedia subject to readers' judgement? They see a picture or they read something...if a pic can be left up to readers' judgement, who is to say text can't as well? Joe Blow can read an article used as a source and say "I think it's BS, I'll get rid of it." Just because something is written in text, doesn't mean that it too isn't subject to people's judgement.

That's the thing about people - one's indisputable proof can be another's "judgement call". Long story short, what makes text absolute, and not a pic, as anything can be left to a reader's judgement when you get right down to it?

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Vjmlhds: No, because normally the sources we use explicitly state something. An image doesn't do that, it's left up to interpretation. Now, where it concerns this specific dispute around the NEVER Openweight title, I actually have no opinion on whether or not it should be included (which is why I didn't remove it). I don't watch Impact, so I'll leave it to you and Addicted4517 to decide on the talk page whether or not it should remain. My only issue is a picture being used as a source, rather than an explicit statement that says Impact recognise it. — Czello 14:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

So your argument is essentially that Impact's own PPV isn't a credible source. This is just absolute ridiculousness at that point. We've got two people who are so unwilling to concede that you're both claiming Impact Wrestling themselves are not a credible source for what constitutes a recognised title. Come now.

Also, "open to interpretation?" I'd question someone's functionality if they're somehow unable to look at an image of Karl Anderson holding the NEVER belt at an Impact show and thinking it's anything different. SkylerLovefist ( talk) 22:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Your editing demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:V. The question is whether Impact recognises the title -- a picture of him wearing it does not remotely come close to counting as verifiable. If you're going to include a source, it needs to be both better and explicit. — Czello 22:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

It's him. In an Impact ring. With the belt. How explicit does it need to be? WP:COMMONSENSE is a thing. SkylerLovefist ( talk) 22:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:V. The statement "Impact recognises this title" is not adequately demonstrated by a picture. You need to find something explicit. If you are certain that they recognise it, it shouldn't be difficult to find a source. — Czello 05:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Czello is correct. The picture is not good enough. The picture does not identify the title. You saying it's the NEVER Openweight Title is original research without a source. It is basic WP rules. Skyler Lovefist is using specified knowledge which is not appropriate in this instance or any instance in professional wrestling. Saying "It's him. In an Impact ring. With the belt" is presumptive to those who do NOT know Karl Anderson on sight, the Impact ring on sight and said title belt on sight. And that means the majority of the WP viewership. It's as clear as that. Addicted4517 ( talk) 06:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Man, did it hurt reaching that far?

You're just trying to jump through hoops as usual to avoid admitting to being wrong. The picture DOES identify the title given the title has the word "NEVER" on it. "Specified knowledge." Gee, you mean that a source relating to professional wrestling is only relevant to professional wrestling?

Your constant gatekeeping is beyond disruptive at this point. SkylerLovefist ( talk) 07:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You seem to still be misunderstanding Wiki policy. I will explain further on the article's talk page, and I even have a proposed replacement solution. — Czello 07:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

He has a history of it. Addicted4517 ( talk) 10:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. You recently reverted me for making a statement about some obvious racism. If you want to make a counter argument for racism, do it directly, please don't feel the need to remove or change my statement. Thanks. 107.127.56.4 ( talk) 08:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I removed your comment because I did not find it constructive and close to violating WP:NPA. — Czello 08:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed you ahve a biase towards the user User:ItsKesha who has been warned numerous time by various users and extremely HIGH RAANKED Admins like Bbb23 see this : [1] and thats just one of many high profile warns he gets away with and hides but that wont change his talk page revision history. Moreover WP:PW seems to have a bias against John Cena, he is one of the greatest wrester ever and one of the biggest draws ever, see the legacy section of Chris Jericho who was never as big as a draw as cena (though extremely talented) and see how small John cena's Legacy section is. You have a anti Cena bias and you are showing favoritism to a user with history of violent edits and high profile warns, who shamelessly erased warns of top ranked admins. Maybe you should take the matter to WP:ANI instead, maybe WP:PW does deserve the general sanction it is under? Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't have a bias towards ItsKesha, or any other editor. It just so happens that both of us agree that some of your edits to the Cena article aren't appropriate. I'm not sure why you've linked a warning ItsKesha received given that it's completely unrelated to these edits (or even pro wrestling). But if we're talking about bias, again, you clearly aren't being neutral in your editing of the Cena article. You've admitted a bias to him several times, including in this very comment and the last time you messaged on my talk page. I've explained my reasoning on why ItsKesha's removal was justified, but you haven't addressed it - instead you're simply accusing us of having an agenda. Per WP:NPA, Comment on content, not on the contributor. — Czello 08:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

last time was about Cena vs HBK being the greatest match in Raw history, you did not agree with my sources fine, but there is no scope for you to disprove my sources that WrestleMania 28 and SummerSlam (2021) two events main evented by John Cena are the highest grossing and most viewd WWE events in history. I have given numerous WP:RS! Also if you are talking about NPA, see ItsKesha's PA against me, I dont cry over it: [2] Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Anyway I apologise for breaking NPA against ItsKesha but John Cena's legacy must not be undermined and so what if I am a fan of Cena, I have not made any biased claim, just stating WP:RS information about him. Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

My issue wasn't with the sources of your latest edit, it's the implication that Cena being in the main event was why they were the highest grossing PPVs. — Czello 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

It is worth noting that WrestleMania 28 and SummerSlam 2021 sold their tickets due to Rock vs Cena aned Reigns vs Cena respectively, do you think the main attraction to SummerSlam 2021 was McIntyre vs Mahal or Damien Priest vs Sheamus or something? Do you ahve any knowledge about wrestling draws and star power. WM 28 was literraly tagged once in a life time even if it was not tue in the end, and Reigns vs Cena was the most promoted match for SummerSlam 2021 and even its poster is Cena's image. You are disrespecting Cena's drawing power. Yes its individual wrestler's article, but that doesn't change the fact that cena's matches were the main attraction in those events and even the WP:RS i provided says cena's matches were the main attraction. Wde should give credit to Cena for his drawing power. I hope I explained to you now, I am restoring it one more time if it gets reverted well I don't ahve time for WP:DR at the moment but in future, but do not worry I won't break WP:3RR however you should respect Cena's star power and what i says compled with WP:PW/RS each of which stated that Cena's matches with Rock and Reigns were the main attracton of those events, i never claiemd the events solely drew for them but its undeniable that cena's matches were the main event and build ast the main attraction! Good day. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Please discuss it on the article's talk page. Ultimately this comes down to whether or not there is a source which demonstrates Cena is the reason it drew so high. — Czello 13:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The sources say that cena's matches were the main attraction, thats all the implications we need , we should avoid Wp:Plagarism and take Cena vs Rock and Cena vs Reigns being the main event as the reasons those events were a success and the sources themselves say Cena's matches were the main attraction of the shows. Please try to understand this. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

We don't operate on "implications". If you want to make the claim that Cena is responsible for the PPV's success you need a source that explicitly states it — Czello 13:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

This looks like it fits WP:RS and is not classified as unreliable on WP:PW/RS, not one of the sources I used but it has a more direct statment which I hope you understand: [3], here: "The 2021 edition of SummerSlam was held at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nevada, the home of the Las Vegas Raiders. The show was headlined by Seth Rollins vs. Edge, John Cena vs. Roman Reigns for the Universal Title and Goldberg vs. Bobby Lashley for the WWE Championship." And it also wrote "Roman Reigns has reacted to WWE's press release, tweeting: "Legitimate needle moving."". So yes Cena vs Reigns was the main event of the highest grossing and most viewed WWE event in histrory and the match was called a needle moving match, and here is a source that says Rock vs Cena making WM 28 the most bought WWE event in history [4], it states taht cena was the reason for the success. Hope you now have the direct implications you were looking for. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Firstly Cultaholic is explicitly called unreliable on WP:PW/RS. Secondly, the source still doesn't back up the claim that Cena had anything to do with it - only that it was the highest grossing. I shouldn't need to explain why Reigns tweeting is irrelevant to this.

The second source, though, does explicitly state it was because of the main event of WM. That one's good to add. — Czello 13:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Czello So I am allowed to add back teh WM 28 match? Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes go ahead — Czello 14:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks aand best wishes :) Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

This article Second_Cold_War has too much America-centrism. I commented about it in the Talk page. The intro paragraph says it is "military tensions in the 21st century between the United States and China." These tensions are not just between those countries. It should not be only about America vs China and Russia. It should include all relevant countries and be more about alliances or groups of countries. - Artanisen ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Whatever the article discusses really has to be what's supported by sources. If it's America-centric that's because it's what is currently represented by sourcing. If you feel there's expansion around non-American subjects, please do add them. — Czello 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I will agree to this, its not just USA vs Russia and China, but NATO vs Russia and China, I respect USA's committment but also UK and France are working hard to protect the soveirgnity of Ukraine and Taiwan too. Also there is a lot of China -Australia hostilaty, and the article doesn;'t talk much about the US - China trade war and the current Russian fuel crisis similar to the 1970s OPE crisis. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the article overlooks important things that other countries are doing. It's not a balanced representation of what's happening. The Second level headings frame it as if it's only USA vs China-Russia. There is not a single heading about other countries. - Artanisen ( talk) 05:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure "ukrop" is an ethnic slur. It refers specifically to far right extremists in the military. Is "far right extremist" an ethnicity? It's the same as "gusano", it refers to a specific political identity. Is "TERF" a slur? 2600:100F:B08B:967A:3D4E:4C28:D7AB:56F6 ( talk) 00:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

It is considered a slur: https://www.definitions.net/definition/ukrop — Czello 07:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I am a trans woman and I wanted to thank you for reverting those transphobic edits and sources - in addition to the biased Spectator and Daily Mail sources - on the 2022 leadership election article. 78.149.121.207 ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Since Merriam-Webster lists 'directress' as "a female director" would u be okay with the changes I was making on that basis? Also it's already in the Wiktionary saying "a woman who directs", and the Wiktionary entry for 'director' lists 'directress' as the feminine.

I don't want to add anymore for the moment despite my perspective that this is a sufficient warrant for the addition, cos I don't wanna edit war with u :) Stephanie921 ( talk) 13:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think there's anything in our WP:MOS which suggests we should use phrasing like that - in general we should stick to the most common term used. As "Director" isn't inherently gendered, that's the simplest term to use for the phrase across any article, regardless of gender. — Czello 13:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. Would you please add Io Shirai to your watchlist? It has become a target of unhelpful edits by IPs and unconfirmed users since her appearance at SummerSlam (2022). I can't watch it 24/7. I really need another editor's help. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 13:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, no problem. Thanks for the heads-up. — Czello 14:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Expect some new ring name drama and main roster made-up stuff; e.g. changing the lead section and infobox., converting her new ring name to all caps, messing with the name of infobox, deleting her previous well-known name (Io Shirai), adding personal commentary to both lead and new section Main roster, and other similar problematic edits. If you look at the recent history, you will see such stuff. Plus some users could rush and move the article without consensus. Regards. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 14:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Wasn't trying to be argumentative, but when a guy is removed from the official website roster, that's about a clear a signal as anything.

We're so used to big grandiose statements in wrestling, that we forget that sometimes people can just quietly slip out the back door.

Vjmlhds 15:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Vjmlhds: Don't worry, I didn't perceive you as being argumentative at all I genuinely didn't realise he'd been removed from the site until you said. — Czello 15:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

All good - like I said we're so busy waiting for Moses an Mt. Saini with the stone tablets, we miss the thing actually happening right under our nose. Vjmlhds 15:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I get people are edgy and all but my comment was a response to one particular editor, and it was not even slightly hyperbolic in their case -- you should follow the link and look at their edit history. -- 69.50.32.254 ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

If you mean his comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler, I actually think it's a very reasonable statement per WP:NPOV. I personally disagree with him for the reasons the replies say — but saying he's a, in your words, "I'm not a Nazi, but", is clearly implying that he's a sympathiser. — Czello 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I am at a loss for words. "I'm not a Nazi, but" is a very direct paraphrase of their post. Like why do you think that phrase is associated with Nazi sympathizers -- is it just some weird coincidence, or might there be an underlying reason for it???

(Also their very first edits were to try to get a genocide category deleted! Coming to the correct conclusion here is not rocket surgery, as long as you relax slightly your initial defensiveness about a comment that had nothing to do with you.) 69.50.32.254 ( talk) 16:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm simply not reading any kind of Nazi sympathising from his post - it's a NPOV request based on the reasonable assertion that Wikipedia shouldn't make judgements, no matter how obvious. (For clarity, I disagree with him as it's not in Wikivoice - if it were, I'd agree with him). And, let's face it, if he'd made that same comment without the statement that Hitler was undoubtedly evil, then people would have clearly accused him of being sympathetic. It's a lose-lose situation - how does one make that request without being called a sympathiser? — Czello 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Indeed, it is very difficult to go around expressing sympathy for Hitler without being accused of being a Nazi sympathizer, I agree. Likewise it is very difficult to go around trying to have a category like Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide deleted without people wondering whether you might be a genocide denialist. This is not a strange and problematic accident that needs to be resolved somehow! 69.50.32.254 ( talk) 17:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

(I'm happy to stop any time, please let me know if you get tired of this.) 69.50.32.254 ( talk) 17:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

And I simply do not accept that he expressed sympathy for Hitler. I understand the desire for an encyclopedia to be 100% emotionless. Believing this equates to disagreeing with the sentiment is simply wrong. We're not here to make grand declarations. As for the category - he's explained himself rather well, and even others are voting delete. I hope you don't think these are all genocide sympathisers. — Czello 17:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I think that you are, for unclear reasons, being willfully blind about an editor whose editing history makes it obvious that they will eventually be blocked as a provocateur without ever contributing meaningfully to the encyclopedia. I also think that going to great lengths to defend editors who have not made any positive contributions to Wikipedia (in Bedford's case, for a decade; in the case of MN, ever) reflects extremely poorly on the defender. I, personally, would not spend my energy supporting people who defend the confederacy, Hitler, genocide deniers, etc., with no identifiable benefit to Wikipedia, since literally anything else I could do with my time would be more valuable. -- 69.50.32.254 ( talk) 18:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

It's not the people, it's the the principle. Bedford's views I don't even agree with, obviously. I'm happy to be proven wrong on the day Necker is blocked. — Czello 18:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ User:Czello Maybe you do not understand English. [5], [6], [7], [8] all declared that the post Vince Time frame (aka post Vince era) is a new era. You nust read a dictionary to know what an era is. Maybe you should read a dictionary about what "post" means too. All sources are stating after Vince's retirement its a new era, post Vince means after Vince and sources back up the word era. Learn English kindly. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

This is in regards to your recent good faith mistake on History of WWE. Remember no personal views, go by the WP:PW/RS which all agree that its a new era after Vince, aka post Vince, post = after. Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Whether or not there even is a new era is clearly in dispute - the discussion on the WikiProject makes this clear. Vince McMahon's retirement is more notable than a disputed "era". — Czello 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dilbaggg is right, the new era started with Vince's retirement. You can see the changes. It's "new era" without an official name as of now. It's just means it's a different part of the company's history. We say "new era" as we don't know what to call it yet. Until WWE officially calls it something, it's unofficially the new era. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 04:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Consensus is against this. There has been an extensive and tiresome discussion on this already, and I'm not keen to reopen it. Currently we have a compromise, where Dilbaggg has altered the heading to be "After the retirement of Vince McMahon". This is technically against the existing consensus, but it's not worth fighting and seems to be a reasonable compromise. Let's leave it at that rather than fuelling more edit warring. — Czello 07:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:AGF oesn't mean you can get away with all forms of WP:Disruptive Editing and at this point this appears to be a persistant behavior. You have been persistently removing WP:RS contents on History of WWE article and you falsely claim that there was a consensus that the name should not be Post Vince McMahon Era, when the consensus is on wheather the New Era and Reality Era should be merged to a new article or not, there has been no consensus regarding the name of the July 22, 2022 onwards era and multiple WP:RS and WP:PW/RS that have called it Post Vince McMahon Era, you removed reliable sources based on personal views and claims of false consensus. Next time I will let the admins deal with it, tehy can see for themselves how you are WP:GTS by using a totally different consensus [9] unrelated to this edit: [10]. Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Also regarding the consensus to the new era and reality era being merged, which is unrelated to this edit on the Post vince McMahon Era, you claimed four people supported it when i and GaryColemanFan opposed it here, only 3 people supported which is insufficient: [11] Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

We're entering WP:CIR territory at this point. I'm not going to keep going in circles with you if you're just going to repeat the same points. Please keep discussions on the WikiProject where they're central. — Czello 10:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no need for another consensus discussion since consensus has been established. It is that the Undisputed Era is a WWE/NXT faction. Regardless if it's the same members (Adam Cole, Kyle O'Reilly, Bobby Fish), anything AEW related to them as a group is not to be in that article. There is information about the group in The Elite and reDRagon. If disruptive editing persists, you go to WP:RPP and see if the page will get semi-protected. Since it's not a big issue of disruption, if it gets semi-protected, it will only be for a short period of time. But make sure you're not edit warring before making your request. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 04:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't be enthused by another discussion on the matter, but remember that consensus can change. The IP seemed to have a misinterpretation on how consensus works. — Czello 07:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Bro I knwo we ahd our differences but, @ AndyTheGrump's BLP violation argument against me was false. See admin comments, [12]. I was not the editor who intrduced the VKM retirement section anyway, but it was a significant event that he retired after 40 years and Steh and HHH took charge. The page is protected currently, but after protection expires I hope you understand the importance of adding it back. This was not even the issue I previously ahd with HHH Pedigree, we were discussion The New Day's historic 11 times tag team title reign inclusion. Eitherways you and I both accepted the VKM retirement title, so hope after September 2, it gets added back. And Andy falsely accused me of BLP violation, even admins agreed it was false ccusation. He even did uncivil comments in the edit summary. Anyway peace bro, I just want to be constructive not to be destructive, i want as much as WP:RS information as possible thats all. Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I personally didn't consider it a BLP violation, but I do still think there's a larger issue around inclusion that I illustrated at WP:RSN. In short, while I think the article shouldn't exist (or should be a bit more defined), I do think that if it remains in its current format then VKM's retirement should probably be included. That said, HHH does have good points around inclusion. — Czello 08:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

All right bro, we can cooperate after September 2, we just all want the article to look good and the readers to enjoy it. Wwishing you well until then. And disengaging from PW for now, unless there is something that is very important to me taht is being under discussion. Take care and peace. Dilbaggg ( talk) 08:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You closure note at the talk page of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is inaccurate because I am not OP. Madame Necker ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You're right, I've undone my edit. — Czello 19:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry mate but WWE themselves along with multiple other external sources acknowledged the exisience of these eras, this poll even displys it, there was a good reason your AFFDs were declined stop pushing personal views please: [13] Bye. Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You're missing the point, again. I will continue to push that these articles should be deleted because, frankly, they should - and it seems the majority of editors feel the same way. — Czello 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You are wrong most editors do not agree, GaryColemNFan, the wrter of the article CodyRhodesDiva, GamerFan guy and many editors with low profile do not agree that they should be deleted. I will agere that Reality Era seems to have more sourcesb than New Era, it is both acknowledged by WWE and till date many sources talk about it such as: [14]. [15], [16] which are post 2017 sources, there are way many more pre 2017 sources most in the article and theis WP:PW/RS ESPN source: [17]. I agree with you the new era may have been a markenting term in 2016, but the Reality Era wasn't, it has been covered by many external sources. So I am with you if you merge the Reality and New Era ino The Reality Era (2014 to 2022). The name Reality Era is far better sources and well established all over the world. We live in one blue world, lets get along and work together. If you merge the New Era into the Reality Era (2014-2022) you have my full support. Anyway best wishes @ Czello bro. Dilbaggg ( talk) 01:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That was from an AfD 18 months ago. I do not see the same level of support now. Remember, consensus can change. — Czello 08:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

All right @ Czello, I am on merging the articles then. This was HHHPedigree's statement in 2020, he believes the New era is just a cntinuation of the Reality Era and pleanty of sources supports the Reality Era is going on from 2014 to Present date: [18] Dilbaggg ( talk) 11:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. If you want to change content to how you think it should be, then use talk page first. Currently, Your edits are brings a lots of controversies. And you are definitely aware of this.

If you didn't know then here see:

he keep changing content to how he think it should be. For example, he is arguing that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) is a part of Chinese culture. Thus I just had to restore the stable version due to WP:NOR. persistent vandalism with original research cannot acceptable.(stable version that has been in use for a long time ☞ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Hanbok&oldid=1102896065) Basically their motivation is based on their opinion that immigrant's culture can be a part of Chinese culture. There was no reliable source that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) can be a part of Chinese culture. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanbok#Is_Hanbok_the_traditional_clothes_of_Korean-Chinese_or_not%3F_Is_Hanbok_a_part_of_Chinese_culture%3F) User10281129 ( talk) 09:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

then use talk page first - the same needs to be said to you, as you're currently edit warring. Please leave the article as it is and engage on the talk page. — Czello 09:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Weve been disguising in talk page, but he edited again without agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You are doing the same, and you're continuing to revert past 3 edits. — Czello 09:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Dear Czello/Archive 8,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Mann Mann ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Per this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Proposal: Create new article History of WWE (2014-2022), merge Reality Era and New Era (WWE) into it, and also the reasons I gave on the New Era (WWE) article itself. However as I said above Reality era has many sources to validate it, we can merge New Era to the Reality Era. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message. I'll reply to you on the Wikiproject as it'll be good to have more visibility on the discussion. — Czello 15:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have a question. Why did you removed the 2022 PWI500 rating? According to the Style Guide, we include the highest ranking, so if the 2022 number is higher than the 2021, we include the 2022. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Fair enough - I was under the impression we included all accolades, not just the most recent. However, the IP in question was updating the rating without updating the URL along with it - these will also need replacing. — Czello 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Which "reliable sources" did I delete? Also even if I deleted a reliable source (if I did then I'll undo it) why did you delete all of the changes I made and not just add the sources back? Besides, I had two different edits you undid, and one of which didn't remove any reliable sources whatsoever, and just marked one as unreliable LilyLawliet ( talk) 20:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

You deleted a number of journal articles without explanation; you've also altered the descriptions of the Communist Party from what was sourced. — Czello 20:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I originally removed the article about Hong Kong because I thought it was only about Hong Kong so I didn't think it was good to include in an article about Cuba, but on further reading it does mention Cuba as well. Apologies for that, I should have payed more attention, and it should be placed back. I'll go through the rest of my changes now

1: changing Cuba from a one party state to a non partisan one: all members of the Cuban government do not have to be a member of the communist party to be in the government and this is admitted later in the article. Whether it is controlled by the PCC is up for debate, but what isn't is the fact that on paper it isn't a one party state and the article should reflect this.

2: I then marked freedom house as an unreliable source; the country reports do not say where they get their information from, and it is funded by the american government which has had a long conflict with Cuba. A more reliable source would be something like the human rights watch, which refuses all government funding and is fully independent

3: I removed freedom house from paragraph 3 and replaced it with "citation needed": I do believe this paragraph is accurate, but as mentioned before, freedom house is not a reliable source, so I removed it and was planning on replacing it later on once I had time to do more research on the matter

4: paragraph 4 says

"Castro's brother Raúl Castro was designated Fidel's successor at the 5th Communist Party congress in October 1997."

however, the source provided doesn't mention the 5th communist party congress at all, it only mentions the fact that Raul was elected by the national assembly in 2008 and 2013, so my solution was to turn the sentence into "Castro's brother Raúl Castro was designated Fidel's successor at the 5th Communist Party congress in October 1997, ^{citation needed} and officially elected by the national assembly in 2008 and 2013.[8]" that way the information is still there and can be fact checked later, but making the information from the original cited source present in the article.

5: the political parties section cites reuters.com, which is titled "Cuba's one party system" but the description later on says that "Delegates are not required to be members of the party but most are." and this is reinforced by the other articles which say that people from "banned parties" were still able to be nominated for the local councils, which supports the view that Cuba is non-partisan. however, political scientists still criticize the system as undemocratic, so we have to replace "The Communist Party of Cuba is the official state party and Cuba is a one-party state; the single-party system is enshrined in Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution." which is pushing the view that they are authoritarian without giving both sides, with "The Communist Party of Cuba is the official political party and Cuba is constitutionally a non partisan state; however, the communist party is named "the superior driving force of society and the state" in Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution, which political scientists deem as evidence of the party influencing or outright rigging elections" which gives both sides of the argument a fair voice

6: I replaced "parties were dissolved and banned" with "parties were dissolved", however this was a bad change in hindsight and should be restored

7: The paragraph on the European union's policy had no sources cited, so I put "citation needed" at the end of it

I think that's all I changed, apart from the warnings at the top that said "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." and "This article needs additional citations for verification.", and I still think most of these should be re-implemented. Let me know what you think. LilyLawliet ( talk) 21:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Not sure where else to put this, so I saw it fit to put it here. I wanted to ask what exactly you meant by sourced in the body? None of the sources seem to change the fact that Juche uses Marxism-Leninism as its basis, which would be rather significant as it determines the nature of the movement. Similarly, there is no sourcing in the body that I can find for "more human rights", which I would argue is vague and loaded and better summed up with the establishment of liberal democracy? Genabab ( talk) 10:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, source 19 states that NK abandoned ML after the revolutions. You might be right about the human rights part though. — Czello 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply

From Meltzer's mouth to God's ear, Black and Buddy are indeed gonzo.

Vjmlhds 18:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Depressing news, Malakai and the House of Black were my favourite part of the show. — Czello 18:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Truthfully, Tony Khan bought so many toys, he doesn't have time to play with them all, and this is what happens. Vjmlhds 18:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It now appears that both Black and Buddy have called BS on those reports. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Not sure what kind of consensus you require for me to move the far-right reference to another sentence later on, which entirely keeps its original meaning. That allows the original list to include things which only affect far left politics but should be included (ie distribution). Reverting my claim on private property redistribution to one about damage is obfuscation considering how critical that is to the most influential far left thinkers. Lmomjian ( talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Why do you want to move the "Similar to far-right politics" to the end anyway? What does it achieve? Also, to reiterate on the redistribution part: that sentence is talking about the similarities to far-right politics in the violence or destruction it's caused. Discussing the ideological desire to eliminate private property already happens elsewhere in the article. Essentially you're removing one statement and duplicating another. — Czello 21:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I am confused by your response. I want to move it because I want to describe elimination and redistribution of private property, which is very important to the far-left and among its most destructive consequences. Again, like I've said before, I don't know why the chief goal of the sentence describing the harms caused by far left ideas is to find similarity to far-right results. Moving to a later sentence allows issues occurring SOLELY with the far-left to be included. Regarding duplication, if it's found elsewhere in the article , that's honestly all the more reason for its inclusion where I placed it--if it's found elsewhere it should also be addressed in the opening discussion too, esp since there is already a section detailing far-left harms. Important ideas get summarized in summary opening paragraphs. Lmomjian ( talk) 23:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Instead of altering the existing sentence, which is sourced, why not add it to the paragraph above - given that that's the sentence which already talks about what its ideological goals are? That makes the whole thing more consistent - we start with what it is or what it believes, and then we move onto the more destructive elements of it. That sentence already even mentions its anti-capitalist nature. — Czello 07:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Now that I think about it, the previous paragraph already handles what I wanted to express in a better way. I should have realized that. Thanks for your assistance. I'll delete this section. Lmomjian ( talk) 23:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you so much for being Bold in breaking off the Timeline of the Mahsa Amini protests from the main article, as the article was indefinitely increasing in size. A million thanks 🙂 Johnson524 ( Talk!) 15:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I really appreciate this. — Czello 15:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh course!! I brainstormed on how to fix this myself, but not once did I think to make it it's own article. Seeing the article split now was definitely the best option 😁 Johnson524 ( Talk!) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Special:Contributions/218.52.15.116
• Special:Contributions/222.120.133.22

I have already reported them. But patrolling the targeted articles would be very helpful because this specific IP returns to them; e.g. Japanese wrestlers like Riho, Yuka Sakazaki, Emi Sakura, and the others. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 15:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the articles. — Czello 17:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Cheers! -- Mann Mann ( talk) 03:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

You surpassed the WP:3RR limit here several edits ago, and I don't think any of the exemptions apply. Please consider taking issues to the talk page or waiting for other editors to change the content. TWM03 ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

3RR doesn't apply here; this isn't one edit being edit warred, it's multiple edits introducing factual errors. Taking it to the talk page would be unproductive for obvious reasons; most of these are new accounts. — Czello 16:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. There is a move request in Talk:Luke Menzies. Can you give your opinion? Thanks. Margarte00 ( talk) 16:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, done. — Czello 18:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, Czello. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Cabayi ( talk) 12:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC) reply

It (List of Political Parties in the United Kingdom) is a long article, and I did not see the mention of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party at first glance. You were very quick to correct me, so well done. Madadhfan ( talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

No worries. Have a good day! — Czello 13:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! So, You have recently reverted my addition of "Jeff Harvey" to Jeff Hardy's page, and i'm here to contest. The thing is, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't really know how to reference, but there is a video proof that Jeff used this ring name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaXX6jMNnd0. I think it counts, right? He's both announced as "Jeff Harvey" and the graphics also show that, the commentary even calls him that during the match. So, if you could, please add that info with proper referencing or direct me to a tutorial on how to do it and I'm sorry for not doing so.

Also in this match Jim Neidhart's graphic shows the name "The Anvil", which is also not on his ring names section on his article either, but I don't know if that counts, since he's announced by his full name.

Anyway, sorry again for the inconvinience. Damassarrico ( talk) 03:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have to admit I thought your edit was initially a reference to this famous botch (2 mins in) - I must confess that I didn't realise he actually went by that name for a while. I've re-added it now, thanks for letting me know. — Czello 08:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey, no problem! Thank you and sorry again for anything wrong I've done.

Damassarrico ( talk) Damassarrico ( talk) 15:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

No worries, you didn't do anything wrong - it was my fault — Czello 15:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello Czello. How are you? I want to propose you something. I want to edit some articles. My main purpose is to avoid weekly events and in-universe stuff as much as possible. But many articles have huge sections. Do you want to edit an article with me? I was thinking Rey Mysterio. As the Style guide says, include highlights and key points of his career. Also, the article is 182,446 bytes, per WP:PAGESIZE we can't have such huge article. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Absolutely, sounds great! I'd actually started something similar on The Undertaker as that article is absurdly huge - but I'm happy to start on Rey's article instead. A lot of wrestlers' articles are too "in-universe", so I'm sure we can get them to a shorter, more encyclopedic standard. — Czello 12:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Nice. If you want, I have my sandbox. You can add to your watchlist and see my changes (I will fix some sections, i'm very scared with the Guerrero-Dominic storyline). Since English is not my first language, I want to write cool stuff but I can't. Also, sometimes I take the policies too seriously and remove important parts.Of course, feel free to change anything you want. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. I changed some thing on Rey's article. IC reign and second world champion reigns. If you want, take a look. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll take a look. Haven't been able to work on the article yet as I've been busy IRL. — Czello 13:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Removing "currently" from the lead of articles about pro wrestlers -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello @ Czello and I hope all is well. I'm reaching out because I see you frequently work on articles about popular culture and also do a lot of consensus building. Given your level of experience here, I would love some feedback to article expansion edits I have proposed on the ( talk:Casetify) page. The article is a stub and in need expansion. If you have time, I'd really appreciate your feedback on my proposed edits or other ways you think the article could and should be improved. Any feedback is welcome and thanks for your time. SBCornelius ( talk) 21:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year!

Czello,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann ( talk) 04:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you, happy new year to you, too, Mann Mann! — Czello 11:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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!

DocHeuh ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the bother, but just wanted to mention that the article is under 1RR protection. If you'd like to undo your last revert, I'll happily re-do it, so to speak, to keep everyone on the right side of things. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to undo - but as they're reverts of two separate edits, does that still count as 1RR? Nonetheless I'll undo to be safe. — Czello 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I think the 1RR applies to any reverts on the page, but don't quote me on that! Happy Friday. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This was very kind. Thank you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you! — Czello 12:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Please could you check the election date rationale I have posted on this page:

/info/en/?search=User_talk:TrottieTrue#Last_possible_UK_Election_Date

It seeks to demonstrate that the changes I made to the Wikipedia page on the last possible date of the next election were accurate and should be restored ElectiondatesUK ( talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, my edit was fixing the grammar, and this is the version of the article which appears to have been restored. I don’t have any interest in changing the election dates.— TrottieTrue ( talk) 14:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, you reverted to unreliable sourced material on Sarvaiya, Gazetteer of Bombay presidency is British Raj source which is unreliable so i reverted to reliable version. 223.188.243.77 ( talk) 12:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the update. I've directed it to the attention of WP:INDIA as this appears to be a slow moving edit war. — Czello 12:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Just look at what user 2601:401:c400:711:20fd:5046:6dab:143c did to the article Royal Rumble (2023). You will be surprised... GodofDemonwars ( talk) 01:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for flagging, I've reverted back to '08. I think we should keep this on the talk page until there's a good enough consensus to change it to '08. — Czello 07:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

One thing I don't understand: WWE.com lists that women's Royal Rumble match as being at 1:01:08, but Pro Wrestling Dot Net lists the match as being at 1:01:03. I don't understand why... GodofDemonwars ( talk) 19:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

https://twitter.com/GabbiAlon/status/1625987288244142081

Mostly FYI, but perhaps path to an updated image. Slywriter ( talk) 04:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'm all on board for an updated image - if Gabbi can give permission that'll help. — Czello 07:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

but no block yet. With the IP edit they are at 5r. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks; if they're logging out to edit I suspect the page might need protection, too. — Czello 14:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

No, that was their first edit, then they created an account. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I see you continue to perform the largely thankless service of monitoring the Trumpism article. It has been quite a while since I was doing heavy contributions to the article. I'd like to get your sense of where the article is now. There are likely many new articles examining the subject but do you think some areas are still weak and need serious investigation of scholarly sources, or do you think the article is mostly sufficient/ could be improved by scaling it back? J JMesserly ( talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I think the article is generally in a good state. One worry I have (and many others do) is that anything related to Trump becomes subject to bloat and scope creep. Sometimes Trump or Trump-adjacent articles become overburdened with too much detail. For that reason I probably wouldn't want to see much more added to the article, but we could consider splitting some sections off to their own, smaller articles. I'm not sure, to be honest! That said, I do think the scholarly quality of the article is generally pretty good. — Czello 22:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Right. It is a lightening rod that tends to generate needless misunderstandings. On scholar.google.com I have seen some more in depth and to my mind more disciplined analysis from a variety of perspectives not so much U.S. focused. EG more generalized examinations eg the trumpist mind set of followers of authoritarian regimes in Russia, Hungary, Brazil... I will take a look on some possible spinoffs. Best Regards J JMesserly ( talk) 00:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This user multiple times vandalized the ZeroNet article. See:

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#ZeroNet

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_Admins_vandalizing_the_ZeroNet_article 80.246.91.162 ( talk) 15:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Where, precisely, is the malware distribution within that article? — Czello 15:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

( talk page watcher) IP, you have provided no diffs of the supposed “malware distribution”. I suggest you stop unless you can find diffs, otherwise, I very much see a block headed your way. Yoshi24517 (mobile) ( talk) 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I am only here to help with anything and correct any mistakes that have been made for the wrestling shows and sports and so on. I promise you i am not on here to cause any problems or trouble. I only want to help is all. I'm trying my best. Please be patient with me. Mansterman89 ( talk) 17:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

No prob, I don't think you've done anything wrong. The Draft:List of WWE NXT episodes article should remain in draftspace for now, however, until it's looking more complete. Also I see you've been working on Draft:List of WWE Raw episodes - you might benefit by adding to the existing list here and then transferring it to a full article once it's complete, otherwise we're duplicating our efforts. Cheers. — Czello 17:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey bro do you remember our consensus last year to include "In 2022 Pinkvilla has said the feud "was arguably one of the greatest rivalries in WWE history". ^[1]" on Cena–Orton rivalry article? Well @ User:ItsKesha who seems desperate for attention keeps disregarding established consensus and keeps removing the content based on personal views, I requested him to seek consensus but he always trys to provoke WP:EW, can yopu please help me out with this, we agreed on this term and reached a consensus to include this last year. I am so busy these days I can't always fix ItsKesha's vandamislm. Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply