Jump to content

User talk:Czello/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WCW Tag Team title

[edit]

Hi. I have one question. Do you think Waltman won the WCW Tag Team title? It looks like a substitution, not a champion. WWE doesn't list the reign [1] solie only says "The Steiner Brothers defeated Scott Hall/Syxx {Sean Waltman} due the leg injury of Kevin Nash" and the [2] WCW title history says "The Outsiders: Scott Hall and Kevin Nash defeat The Steiner Brothers: Rick and Scott 01/12/98 / The Steiner Brothers: Rick and Scott defeat The Outsiders: Scott Hall and Syxx* 10/13/97 Syxx (now wrestling as X-pac), subbing for injured Kevin Nash" Looks like WWE and WCW doesn't recogniced the reign and Waltman was a substitute. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't win the title, he was indeed just a substitution. It seems to me that, at the time, Syxx was considered one half of the tag team champions, albeit if only briefly. WWE (understandably) doesn't recognise this reign, so I think it works best by listing the reign on his page, but having a note afterwards saying that WWE doesn't acknowledge it. — Czello BB 14:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? A substitute isn't a champion always. WCW doesn't recognized as champion. For example, the TNA Tag team championship. One time, Alex Shelley was the substitute for Bobby Roode. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, actually. Sure, if you want to remove it, I won't oppose it. — Czello BB 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uff. Now, user:Vjmlhds show me a photo about freebird rules and appears Nash, Hall and Syxx. What's happend? Nor WWE or WCW recognized Waltman as champion. I'm thinking we are inventing the articles: hulk hogan's two extra wcw world heavyweight reings, tna world tag team champions (kaz/young, creed as champion) I think it's simple: no company recognized the reign, he wasn't champion. Also, OWOW canoeand Cagematch doesn't list him as champion--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your best bet is to take it up with Vjmlhds; I don't mind either way how it's listed. I'll go with whatever the consensus of the sources say. — Czello BB 18:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I want to hear your opinion about it. I think you are a great user. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to bother you, but regarding the Freebird Rule discussion, I was pointing out to HHH Pedigree a recent piece done by WWE about all the teams over the years who have used the gimmick. Among them was the Wolfpac. It looks like WWE gave Syxx credit for being a co-champion kind of after the fact the way the piece is written. At the end of the day, the WCW Tag Team Championship is WWE property, and if they want to say Syxx was "Freebirded" into the title, then their word is law, since it's their title. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll weigh-in on the talk page. — Czello BB 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Fair (ballad) bands

[edit]

Hi Czello, why you can't permit the addition of Cernunnos Band? Because is an Argentine Band? If you don't know about it is not enough for erase it. In the original article there are many bands that could be mention like not notable. Let me introduce the change or unedit yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorjc3 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. — Czello BB 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

[edit]

WWE

[edit]

Hi. I have a question and you discusses about WWE name in the talk page. I know that World Wrestling Entertainment changed the name to WWE in 2011. So, it means that wrestlers work in WWE, not World Wrestling Entertainment, right? Are this editions right? [3] [4] [5] [6] I reverted them, because if a wrestler wins a title post april 2011, he will won the title in WWE, not World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE. It's like a 2010 wrestler won the title in World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's conflicting reports about WWE's name. I think as far as technicalities go, their official trading name is still "World Wrestling Entertainment", even though WWE have stated that in the links you provided at Talk:WWE that they prefer to just be called "WWE". I suppose that you're right: post-April 2011, we should refer to it as "WWE" rather than "World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE". However, I don't think it's technically wrong to still call them the former. — Czello BB 07:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

[edit]

The Shield

[edit]

They worked in NXT it's a list of promotions or organizations they wrestled in as the shield which were NXT first and WWE after everyone knows that except you don't seem to understand that JMichael22 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out, buddy. Let's take it to the talk page. Also, why do you have a claim on your userpage that you're an admin? You're not one. — Czello BB 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple NXT is different from the WWE and what Admin are you talking about? JMichael22 (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the userbox near the bottom of your page that says "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.". — Czello BB 14:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it I don't even know what that is only things Iv placed in my user box have been my age and my city's and my teams why is that other thing there, The thing that says 6 months and 9 days? JMichael22 (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you added the admin box here. I hope you won't mind if it's removed. Anyway, hopefully we can resolve the original issue at Talk:The Shield (professional wrestling). — Czello BB 14:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I never realized it was there JMichael22 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Show

[edit]

Please not changing his name. His formal name is ""The Big Show"" and He called from ring announcer in wwe is ""The Big Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official citations say otherwise, as does our consensus. — Czello BB 15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No! His formal name is not "Big Show". His formal name is "The Big Show". because He called from ring announcer in wwe is it.

[7] which he first ever won wwe title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the ring announcer says is irrelevant. If you look at the link I provided above, WWE says that his official name is just "Big Show". The ring announcer isn't exactly a reliable source. — Czello BB 09:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Czello, his official name is omit. Others match even called from ring announcer is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Look at it this way: the official citations on his WWE profile call him "Big Show". The card that pops up when he's on the way to the ring says "Big Show". Even the damn video games and magazines call him "Big Show". And yet, because the rig announcer happens to say "The Big Show", you think it should take precedence? Sorry, but Wikipedia works off reliable sources, and the reliable sources call him "Big Show". — Czello BB 13:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should take precedence. but I understand saying you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained too. He called from ring announcer and other medias is ""The Big Show"" and his formal name. If he called from ring announcer in WWE is ""Big Show"", I don't editing it. But he debut in 1999~current is ""The Big Show. If you even editing, I don't understand. You should stop editing it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-IuHqWwfvA ← Look at this. This is his entrance and displaying ""@WWETheBigShow"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A twitter name doesn't consist as a reliable source. I mean, Ziggler still has the name @HEELZiggeler, even though he hasn't been a heel in almost a year. I also explained that the ring announcer isn't a reliable source. The only thing that counts is what WWE officially calls him. In all media, whether it be the profile page, video games, or even his official Facebook page, he's called "Big Show". — Czello BB 09:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I question. Doesn't the ring announcer in WWE know his formanl name is Big Show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we've been through this. The WWE profile page trumps everything else. — Czello BB 08:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD3CgoNxRTE On 　the occation of video Vince said"The Big Show"

you editing is selfish of you to behave that way. if you don't belive you should don't editing. look at The Undertaker profile in WWE. The Undertaker profile in WWE is commonly called Undertaker for short. it come to the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkazamaturi (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That video is from 2003. His profile is from 2014. Plus, as I have explained, someone on the mic may casually drop in a "the", while his profile consists of the top source. — Czello BB 09:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Cleanup

[edit]

Hey thanks for the cleanup. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.48.215 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. — Czello BB 16:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

Helmet

[edit]

You are recent genre warrior attitude is against Wikipedia's policies. Please refrain from changing genres without any suitable references to support your claim. Not only does their music not have any noise rock and post hardcore characteristics but also most published articles about them refer to them as a groove band or alternative band. It is requested to stop your genre warrior like stubbornness and it is expected of you to comply with Wikipedia's policies. TheDarkPoison (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lecture me on genre warring: you were the only one in doing so. It seems you only picked up that phrase because of the many warnings on your talk page telling you off for doing exactly that. I was reverting back to the status quo. I have absolutely no problem in you removing unsourced material: what I was doing was undoing you adding an unreliable source. — Czello BB 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RVD

[edit]

Please, tell me what happend. According to the strange rules, if a wrestler doesn't appear in the roster page, he is deleted. People talked about it two months ago (when cody rhodes was "fired") and RVD was moved to alumni. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation overrides that. The fact that it explicitly states that he's "taking time off" as opposed to being released from the company, means that he's still under contract. Plus, he recently tweeted saying he's going to be back "soon, but not too soon" (probably Royal Rumble, but that's beside the point). It's best to just leave him as "inactive", as he is still under contract with WWE. — Czello BB 12:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but Wikiproject decided it. See [[8]] the discussion. section "Rules?":"Storyline or not, consider what "main roster" means. These are the wrestlers assigned by WWE to work on the main shows. Cody Garrett Runnels is, in very real terms, not a part of that group for now. No house shows, no TV, no WWE roster profile. Just sex on the beach. He's almost certainly still under contract and getting paid, but so is everyone on this list, whatever section they're in. Also, we don't have sources saying anyone is "unassigned". That's our word for "Don't fit elsewhere, but reportedly signed." InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, September 4, 2013 (UTC)" Alos, in the same talk page "Fair being fair, RVD has been moved to the alumni page on WWE.com, so he's currently not considered part of the roster. So as has been the policy for the last year or so...unless it's an obvious storyline firing (like with Big Show recently) if they're not on the WWE.com roster, then they don't go on the roster here. Vjmlhds (tslk) 00:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue the discussion there so it's all in one place. — Czello BB 12:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Last Edits

[edit]

Please do not alter my user page. A lot of time and effort has gone into deciding what my edits should be, and my activity is the arrive-to correct one. Your edits have been reverted. — AP

Your edits are considered vandalism, not the other way round. You're ignoring consensus to insert your own (prejudiced) view. Plus, your edits are subject to review, meaning that your changes never reach the live version of the Chelsea Manning article. Indeed, your edits have been reverted once again. Please refrain from continuing, as it will only earn you block from editing; it's futile anyway, as your edits will never be accepted. And I will continue to warn you on your talk page if I see fit. — Czello BB 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

In re: "Well, for a start, that citation doesn't even MENTION WM32. It's talking about 31..."

[edit]

Then you didn't read the entire article, it's towards the bottom. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, so it did; you have my apologies for that. However, I'm still not sure this constitutes a reliable source. The exact mention is a single line which ends in "a source confirmed". I do not think that this is particularly reliable. Though, of course, I am happy for this to be taken to WP:PW and for them to decide. — Czello BB 16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 21:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Czello BB 22:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE World Heavyweight Championship

[edit]

Hi I am intrigued to know as of why you keep page wiping the WWE World Heavyweight Championship article? It clearly states on the Official WWE website that this is a new title and Randy Orton is its first champion. It is official, it is factual information. Wyatt 151 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwetlc/2013/john-cena-randy-orton-26166358

I have explained this on the article's talk page. Please do not edit war. — Czello BB 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World title diagram

[edit]

Hey Czello.

I just wanted to ask you, if you planned on updating your (awesome) diagram of all the world titles to reflect the unification of the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships.

BTW - I'm completely on board with the fact that the WWE World Heavyweight Championship is the new name for the WWE Championship, continuing it's history. The WHC is retired, but the Big Gold Belt is still being used along with the regular WWE title belt to represent the now unified title. This is similar to All Japan Pro Wrestling in how they to this day still use 3 separate belts to represent the All Japan Triple Crown Championship.

Kind of a cool concept when you think about it...makes the title really look like a big deal.

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! As it happens, it's one of the first things I thought about when it was announced about the titles being unified. When I get a free moment I'll update it – possibly this weekend. And yes, I completely agree with you about the two belts being one title. I expect they'll alter it in the future and just have the WWE title, but for the time being it's pretty cool. — Czello BB 17:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your updated diagram...nice job. Also, you passed the 12K mark in edits, so you are now bumped up a notch on your service award. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't actually me, it was User:Jeff Silvers – if you're reading this, thanks!
Thanks for the service award too. — Czello BB 18:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...And the barnstar, too! You're too kind. — Czello BB 18:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Putting the diagram together to begin with was going above and beyond...certainly barnstar worthy. Vjmlds (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request notification

[edit]

You might be interested in this conversation at WT:PW, here. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 19:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro, seen it. — Czello BB 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]
Hello, Czello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

[edit]

WWE Extreme Rules 2014

[edit]
WWE Extreme Rules 2014
Czello, Extreme Rules date has been set. Cyhh2002 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestlezone is not a reliable source. Until WWE say it themselves, it hasn't been announced. — Czello BB 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

Evangelion

[edit]

so you remove all edits without reading article and already existing sources, keep it up Batiste Igienice (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

[edit]

NXT Arrival

[edit]

Hi Czello, seeing as you've edited NXT Arrival, you may wish to contribute to a discussion I've started over in WT:PW on whether NXT Arrival deserves an article, and how the WWE Network affects our articles in the future. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks very much for this. — Czello BB 12:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

[edit]

In case you didn't get my ping

[edit]

HHH Pedigree and I have been talking about Shinkazamaturi, and I know that you have more experience with him than any of us. We thought it would be best to report him. I pinged you, but just in case you didn't get it, you can chime your thoughts in at ANI.LM2000 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've given my thoughts there. — Czello BB 22:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

[edit]

Stylistic Origins of Black metal:I really think my contribution was not meant negatively yet you reverted my edit of the Black metal page.I was trying to give a more accurate representation of what the genre of music came from stylistically which if you listen to Crust punk such as Discharge or Doom,Antischism etc you will hear a very big similarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.235.209 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that; however, the genre you removed was sourced, while the genre you added was unsourced. — Czello BB 23:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

[edit]

History of WWE Championship

[edit]

Thanks for at at least vaguely sourcing that diagram, but it's a long DVD set. Could you perhaps quote the part you think connects the NWA title to the four others? It's a pretty dubious claim, given that most (if not all) title history sources treat the three "splinter" championships as brand new in '63, '91 and '93. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll get on this tonight. — Czello BB 06:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motorhead (May 2014)

[edit]

Greetings man. This IP has suddenly appeared on the Motorhead page and implying his own point of view. It has been discussed to death before that Lemmy's denial of Motorhead being speed metal isn't an issue here on wikipedia. A band member's point of view isn't viable here. After all, this isn't some promotional forum. This is a place where an article is written for mass media. Please look into this issue. Regards. Shallowmead077 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll have a look. — Czello BB 13:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Shallowmead077 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Authority (professional wrestling), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United States Championship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

Well, I can't show you any kind of rule, but I's something I always saw. When a wrestler won the title one time and the next time, he won the title with other name, I read "formerly known as XXX". For example, the IC title, Rocky Maivia and Hunter.... won the titles and the second reigns, it was formerly known as Rocky and Hunter. The WWE World Tag Team title (Mike Rotundo/IRS, the APA), the x division title (Low Ki/Senshi). It's something I always saw. Also, it helps people doesn't know the wrestlers. We see WWE and we know Bad News barrett is Wade Barrett, but if a person doesn't know it, he'll see an unknonw wrestler named Bad News Barrett who is in his fourth reigns without three other reings. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Big E, I saw articles like ECW Title (Nitro/Morrison) or the FCW Titles (Hager/Swagger, and Miller/Slater) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo isn't a reason to keep doing something, particularly if there's no policy (or logical reason). This isn't a trend that is across all articles (for example, on the WCW championship page, it says "Hollywood Hogan", with no mention of "previously Hulk Hogan". Plus, I'd say we don't need to patronise our readers by assuming they're not smart enough to realise that character names change; they can see by clicking on a name that it'll be the same person (or even hovering over the link). I'm all for having it there if the name changes during the reign (such as with the Rock), but I think it's a bit silly putting it in afterwards. For example, would you really think it's worth putting "Formerly Hunter Hurst Helmsley" during Triple H's 2001 Intercontinental reigns? By this point it's redundant. I think our reader is smart enough to know that Wade Barrett and Bad News Barrett are the same guy. As for Big E: I genuinely can't remember if the name change came before or after he won the belt, so I'll pass on that one. — Czello BB 20:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you want. I think is a good idea to inform the reader. For examples, Puerto Rican Titles are a mess and without articles. I found a wrestler who is 8 times tag champion, but he won the titles twice. In Cagematch, I saw he won the titles with two other names. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

[edit]

I misread part of the linked article

[edit]

The article seems to remain relevant though. --Slenderdan (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate how? — Czello BB 21:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both involve information about homosexual adults, and children yes? --Slenderdan (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see where your link explicitly states that homosexual recruitment is a false accusation. — Czello BB 21:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
??? I don't understand your answer to my question. --Slenderdan (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where you linked the article was as a citation to the fact that homosexual recruitment is a false accusation, which I can't see in the article. — Czello BB 22:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said I misread part of the linked article. Can you really not see the relevance of the information I linked the article to? --Slenderdan (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieving edit on Article: Islamophobia

[edit]

Why on earth did you retrieve my edit to the Article: Islamophobia?! what on earth does it mean " criticism of more radical variants of Islam" in the body of the main text mean? As far as I as understand it, it means : All variants of Islam are radical but there are variants which are more radical that others?!!!! I am afraid I am going to redo my edit - by taking out the word "more" back out of the text - unless you offer me an unbiased explanation.

Second, what does a "List of (Islamic) Terrorist attacks" in "See also" section do with an article about a social phenomena in the west. seem to me like a "Justification" to the phenomena rather that an explanation for the "drive" behind the appearance of such phenomena. It is like adding a link in the "see also" section to "list of Western colonies in the Middle east" or "creation of Israel" to an article about "Xenophobia" in Arabic Wikipedia !!!!! I am going to leave that but it is really irrelevant to the Article! Please reply back in your talk page, I don't have an account in English Wiki --علي سمسم (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did an extensive revert of all edits because of edit warring before you removals. — Czello BB 23:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you revert all of their edits because of edit warring on the article? Was that a mistake? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting back to the last clean version which had consensus. No mistake at all. — Czello BB 19:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

[edit]

next UK General Election description of polling shifts

[edit]

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czello/Archive_3&oldid=1136197043"