User talk:Czello/Archive 5

I don't know how else to message you, but in the wachowski sister's wiki they have been dead named. Could you remove that please? It's transphobic and just bad really. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:a617:5200:5c80:2707:934f:b4c3 (talk • contribs)

@2a02:c7f:a617:5200:5c80:2707:934f:b4c3: Hi there! So, according to our policy at WP:DEADNAME, we do include trans people's deadnames if they were notable under that name. So as the Wachowskis were famous pre-transition its our policy to include their names. Conversely, we don't include the names of people like Paris Lees or Nyla Rose, as they weren't notable under their previous names. I hope this clears things up for you. — Czello 10:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Vaulted Shadows

First off, thank you very much for making the aforementioned article, as well as that of Macabre Cabaret. It's always good when people manage and contribute to My Dying Bride-related pages. Your new articles have a good basis, are reasonably detailed, and certainly help the encyclopedia and its comprehensiveness.

One thing I want to bring up is that, when you created The Vaulted Shadows page, you categorized it in its infobox as an EP. I have trouble with this categorization, and I feel like it should instead be labelled as a compilation album. Here's my rationale:

The album combines the tracks from two earlier EPs: The Barghest o' Whitby and The Manuscript.
1. Therefore, all five of the songs on the album are from previous releases...
2. ...and the album features no examples of new or previously unreleased material.
Having no new or unreleased material, and/or being an archive of retrograde material previously published and released, is one of the classic premises of a compilation album.
Referring to it as an EP fails to distinguish this release from other My Dying Bride EPs, which feature all or mostly original songs (or alternate versions of songs released otherwise).
The combination of two past EPs makes it the length of two EPs. By calling this album an EP, this makes it suggest that one EP + one EP = one EP. This is problematic to me from a basic arithmetic standpoint.
1. Exception: If an album compiles two different past EPs (or demos) of, say, 10 and 14 minutes in length, totaling 24 minutes, it would still be EP length. This does not apply here however, because...
Exceeding 54 minutes, the album is an unusually long length for traditional EP standards, and 54 minutes it often a reasonable, expected, and perhaps roughly average, length for a full-length album. (DISCLAIMER: I personally have released a 54+ minute EP, with full recognition of this being an nontraditional approach.)

Based on these tenets, it is my belief that referring to The Vaulted Shadows as an EP is too much of a stretch, and too misnomeric, to be an objectively sound categorization of the release. I wanted to change it to designate the album as a compilation, but before I would want to do so, you are welcome to respond to me your opinion on the matter, including if you have one or more compelling reasons to refer to The Vaulted Shadows as an EP.

Again, thanks for your contributions. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mungo Kitsch: Hi mate, that's actually a good point -- you're right, it should be labelled as a compilation. Go ahead and change it to compilation! I'll also change its designation on related pages like the discography page or bottom template later today. Thanks for raising this. — Czello 08:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually gone ahead and made the change myself; let me know if I've missed anything. — Czello 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello: Looks good to me; two thumbs up! Thanks for your work. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altemeyer & Pettigrew

The point of the sentence to to convey the idea that they are not making a reductionist claim. These guys use some opaque terminology, but the point is not humility, but their view that "polyvocal" descriptions are necessary to get at social psychological phenomena. Do you think it would improve matters if I added a citation to altemeyer and other prominent theorists expressign the same sentiment? It seems like a detail point to me, but I could put it in a note, not the body of the article if you think it would be helpful, along with a list of the particular other historical / political factors they think are in play. But they are not experts on those fields, so I demured from doing that. If you are uncomfortable with the current reading, feel free to change. It is necessary that non reductionist sentiment is expressed. They think it important to emphasize they are not making a reductionist claim.J JMesserly (talk)

@J JMesserly: Hi, my point was less about the claim itself and more that it looks like this is our opinion, rather than theirs. I think the word "obviously" was the real kicker for me, and didn't read as neutral. I'm fine with the sentence being in there, but I think we need to make it clearer that this is something that was said by them (and so backed up by a source). It might be easier if we just quote them directly. — Czello 08:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that many tend not to write in a compact form. EG: One pettigrew passage expressing this sentiment is from the cited source:

"Social scientists are keenly aware that the world is exceedingly complex, that virtually all social phenomena are multivariate. Understanding Trump’s supporters is no exception. We must consider an array of interrelated factors to account for this unprecedented election – demographic and individual factors that constituted the tinder for the explosion and the actual igniting factors that lit the fire. Research on the topic demonstrates that numerous theories and concepts of social psychology prove centrally important in helping to understand this unexpected event. But no claim is made that these social psychological factors provide in themselves a complete explanation. Obviously, key political variables are also involved (Norpoth, 2016), and these are intertwined with the social psychological variables to be evaluated in this paper."

..So, given your preference, this quote could be substituted, "..no claim is made that these social psychological factors provide in themselves a complete explanation. Obviously, key political variables are also involved..." The weakness is that it does not mention the historical or demographic factors that Pettigrew talks about elsewhere, and other verbiage will have to be introduced to establish context for the quote. A lot more words for less meaning, but if you prefer the quote that is fine with me. J JMesserly (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Happy Holidays!

Captain Galaxy is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Czello,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Captain Galaxy 00:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lessons from the past

I hope you learned your lesson from your previous deletion nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reality Era whu your deletion nomination for Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/The New Era (WWE) was not necessary. Just because you feel something is not notable, discounting countless coverage within major WP:RS, doesn't make something not notable. Just pointing out, nothing more than this, you are a senior and highly experienced editor you can nominate whatever article you like being a senior editor but keep in mind discussions for similar articles so that we don't have to give time on the same thing again and again. Take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: I'm not entirely sure this message was necessary -- it feels rather like gloating. I nominated both articles for deletion as I genuinely don't feel either exists beyond WP:SYNTH. You'll note that for the Reality Era deletion, the article did get delete votes to begin with but it swayed towards keep as more sources were added -- I think that's very telling. In the end the result wasn't even a keep: it was no consensus, which demonstrates that the AfD was not unjustified: the same goes for the PG Era article. The New Era article to me is even more egregious: as I said, the phrase "New Era" is only mentioned in one single source. Absolute WP:SYNTH through-and-through; the countless coverage within major WP:RS you mention doesn't exist in the article presently (unless any have been added since the AfD started). Perhaps it will be added in the future, which I'm on board with. I absolutely will nominate articles for deletion if I feel they don't pass our notability guidelines, though I will of course accept community consensus. We're all here to try to improve Wikipedia, though we of course have different methods about how to go about it: it just so happens that I try to hold articles to a high standard and insist that they have adequate sourcing in place. — Czello 09:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I accept your right to nominate any article for deletion, but the statement "only one WP:RS exists as you said above isn't true, there are MULTIPLE WP:RS mentioning the new era that begun in 2016, including WWE themselves {even if you discount that as primary there are plenty more}: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and many other WP:PW/RS and other main stream WP:RS, I could go on and on. Please don't accuse it of lacking ntability just based on personal views. Anyway you nominated for deletion which is your rights and you said you accept majority view which I agree, so lets wait and see. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: Were any of these sources a part of the article when I nominated it for AfD? I opened every one of the 20-something sources and ctrl+F'd "New Era" and didn't see it in any except the WWE source. This isn't based on my personal views at all: please remember to assume good faith. The reason I nominated this for deletion is for exactly the reason I said in the AfD: because I consider it to be a product of WP:SYNTH. Honestly it feels like you're taking this a bit too personally given that you've contributed to the article. Please take my AfD reasonings at faith value: this isn't some personal agenda I have, I just don't think it meets WP:GNG. Again, the fact that the Reality Era article ended in no consensus shows that my reasoning is justified. Similarly, the PG Era was nominated by someone else: so I'm clearly not alone in being sceptical here. WP:AGF, my friend. — Czello 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, my bad you meant "within the article", yes I just pointed out how this is similar to the Reality Era discussion, ofc I always WP:AGF with a senior editor like you, cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

No hard feelings, I hope. I looked briefly into the user before engaging, but you're clearly more familiar with the history of the page. Blanking the RfC looks fine to me. BDD (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Hi mate, no worries and thanks very much for understanding. Sadly this guy likes to jump between socks so I'm familiar with his modus operandi. I expect he'll probably make a return soon, too! Anyway thanks again my friend! — Czello 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political party breakaway groups

Hello! There is some Political party breakaway groups in this English Wikipedia. Like Likud, Jobbik, UKIP, Democratic Party (USA), Labor Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK), National Rally (France), and the other Political Parties. So, the Patriot Party of the United States is splits from Republican Party (USA), which is created by Donald Trump, the former Republican Party politican, he was the Democratic Party politican. The Our Homeland Movement Party is created by the former Jobbik members, like László Toroczkai, Előd Novák, Dóra Dúró, István Apáti, Erik Fülöp, Zoltán Pakusza, and the other former Jobbik politicans. Thats the political schims! If you need something, that i can help, you can contact me anytime! Have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TomFZ67: Hi there, I don't disagree that it's a breakaway movement: I reverted your edit as the category you added doesn't exist yet. If you look at your last edit you'll see that the category link at the bottom is red, meaning it hasn't been created. If you want to create it a good place to start is here: Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_category_pages. Happy editing! — Czello 11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello: Thanks! By the way, Happy New Year you too! --TomFZ67 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on edit proposal?

You're pretty active in the Kellyanne Conway talk page, I just wanted to run my talk:Kellyanne_Conway#Proposed_Edit past you as there's not a lot of consensus. Could I trouble you for a position on that? YallAHallatalk 08:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yallahalla: Hi mate, yeah I saw your proposal -- I'm still mulling it over but will probably vote on it shortly. — Czello 09:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Greetings, I've always promoted facts. What you are doing is promoting misinformation as Miss Universe being the most watch pageant with 500 million viewers. However, Miss World boasts of billions of viewers annually making it the most watch annual television program. For reference of this information, you can even check ABC news. Here is a link. I believe these edit are persons' closely associated with Miss Universe fandom. I have no issues with you.

Here is the link from ABC. There are many other links online from verified news agencies abcnews.go.com/amp/International/BeautySecrets/story%3fid=3949323&page=1 IndianWarriorWikiedit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianWarriorWikiedit: Firstly, that link doesn't work for me -- I'm getting a "page unavailable" result. More importantly, though, there's clearly a content dispute here which is why you need to discuss this on the talk page rather than edit warring. Please read WP:BRD: once you've been reverted we enter the discussion phase, which you are refusing to do. Also keep in mind the three revert rule. You've reverted other editors over seven times now. Finally, you are not permitted to remove reports about yourself from WP:EWN, and you've done this twice now. This is utterly unacceptable, and it's likely to land you with a block. — Czello 21:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more links online. Here is another one www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1997-05-16-9705160099-story,amp.html IndianWarriorWikiedit (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianWarriorWikiedit: I'm sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. I actually don't have a stake in this article at all: my point is that you should be discussing this on the talk page of the article rather than reverting other editors. — Czello 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tale of two (?) editors

Do you see any connection between IndianDignity, whose about to come off their 31 hour block, and IndianWarriorWikiedit, who was just blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: The thought did occur to me, but I actually think they're unrelated. IndianDignity created his account for the sole purpose of edit warring on toplessness because he objected to the implication that Asian women sometimes went topless. It was a sheer PoV thing. IndianWarriorWikiedit has had an account for much longer (since 2018) and seems to be a more genuine editor who just completely ignored WP:3RR and doesn't seem to care for the WP:BRD process. In short, I think it's a coincidence more than anything. — Czello 08:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Incidentally, I'm engaging with IndianDignity on TalK;Toplessness, but I don't think I'm getting through to them. 08:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Beyond My Ken (talk)

I won't chill until I get an apology

You better do something about HHH Pedrigree, I will not stand being insulted like that.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: What do you want me to do? I'm not an admin. I think at this point it's best for all parties to just stop talking to each other and take a day or two to cool off. By the way, I'd advise against re-adding the warning to his talk page: users aren't obligated to display warnings as per WP:BLANKING. Just a friendly suggestion!

— Czello 18:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So just let him call me names and belittle me with nothing done to him? Instead of suggesting things to me, why don't you follow my suggestion and do something to him. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just gonna ignore me or what? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Lol dude relax, I was getting dinner. In answer to your Q: I asked everyone in that thread to chill. Mercifully, it looks like it's calmed down. — Czello 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI tagging

Thanks for helping out with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru, but it's probably best to leave the tagging to the SPI team. The tags are used to guide future investigations and tagging somebody as CU-confirmed when they're not may have unintended consequences. No worries, though, we all learn as we go. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Sure, no worries. Thanks for letting me know! — Czello 14:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I here?

You asked an interesting question on oknazevad's talk page - Why am I here?

Why is anyone here? To try to make this thing better.

But yet my methods are constantly coming under fire simply because I don't just mindlessly follow the WikiBorg and blindly follow the bureaucratic jibberish known as Wiki policy.

It's like a sin to have individual thought, and not just blindly go with the groupthink.

I ask you this in all sincerity and all honesty...why do you just blindly follow policy, and not simply do what you think is best?

At the end of the day, all policy is is just words...why is it so important to treat it like something sacred?

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one's saying you can't have individual thought, but ignoring Wiki policy just because you don't like it isn't constructive. We have it for a reason. It's not so we can all be the borg, it's so that when there are disputes (like on the NXT title page) we can resolve them properly -- rather than one editor just shoehoring their own preferred edits into the article without consensus. — Czello 17:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get the wrong idea - I'm not for anarchy, but there is such a thing as being overregulated Vjmlhds (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblack metal

Why is Unblack metal under controversies and not genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:A4FE:75EE:F507:3C56 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:c7:c201:c640:a4fe:75ee:f507:3c56: I suppose it's because it's less a genre (as musically it sounds the same) and more of a philosophical direction within black metal. It's similar to why NSBM is listed there too. — Czello 21:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWE template colors

If you have a better color scheme, then I'd like to know. I'm seeing all the other wrestling templates use colors. Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why brand them at all? The AEW one isn't too bad but I don't think the red and white WWE ones work at all. — Czello 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with jazzing things up a little bit to break up the monotony. Everything doesn't always have to be drab and boring. I have no issues with the color scheme. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Do you honestly, truly, believe that new colour scheme is an improvement on the default? — Czello 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It brightens it up a touch, so I really do think it is a bit better then the drab old default version. Red, white, and black are WWE's colors, so I have no issues with using them in the template. If you don't like it, that's fine, as this kind of stuff is subjective, but I see no problems with it. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Started a discussion on this topic on the project page, so let's take it over there and see what comes of it. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: The problem is that it's too bright. It's garish and has no definition. You see the original? The colours compliment one another: different shades of blue layered on top of one another. It works. The other version is two colours: bright red and white. The harsh red borders around the edge of everything are a bit overwhelming. Plus, no effort has been made to change the blue-grey highlighting that alternates with each line, which conflicts with the red. It's like a Frankenstein's Monster of conflicting colours. — Czello 20:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I could figure out how to get the colors to work , would you object, or is it default or nothing as far as you're concerned? Vjmlhds (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I'd very very much have to see what they look like first. I'm not opposed to changes in theory (I've given up on the AEW one because it's at least palatable). I'd recommend maybe building a few different versions in your sandbox and then posting them in your thread on the WikiProject (thanks for starting that, by the way) so we maybe have a bunch of ideas to pick from. The only thing I'll say is this: subtlety is key. My problem with the WWE one is because it's in no way subtle and is just garish, which is why I think it's weaker than the default. — Czello 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: By the way, I almost suggested this version, but decided not to because (while I think it's closer to WWE's actual branding) I still thought it suffered from the same problems as the other version. — Czello 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took that version and modified it, by making "softer" versions of the black backgrounds and white lettering, so they don't beat you over the head with a sledgehammer. Somewhat blends in more I think. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PailSimon. // Timothy :: talk 18:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you reverted my edits on the unusual time signatures page?

Hey, I noticed that five separate edits I made on List of musical works in unusual time signatures were rolled back, and was a bit confused as to what the reasoning was. In your edit summary, you only said "I can't see where the source verifies the time signature," but my edits were all on different parts of the page, so this summary confused me. One of my edits was just marking a reference to a band fan-wiki as unreliable, so I don't really get how your summary makes sense if it was referring to that. Regardless, I didn't really understand the rationale for rolling back all five edits. Could you elaborate on your decision? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Hi, apologies -- that was a clumsy revert on my part. I only meant to revert the first edit (this one) as I couldn't see the time signature in the source. However, I think I was looking at an older version of the page, so I inadvertently removed the other edits as well, which I hadn't noticed. I've reverted myself now and re-added you additions, but I've hidden the Tigran Hamasyan as I still couldn't see the time signature on the source. Apologies for the error! — Czello 22:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello: Oh, I see, that makes sense. With the Tigran song, the time signature was really far down on the source I linked. In the track-by-track for the album, he says "[the song] is actually in the unusual time signature of 42/16," but I see why it wouldn't be obvious. I wasn't sure how to specify where the source was on the page, which probably led to the confusion. Is there a way to put that info in the citation template? - HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: No worries, I see it now. I've just re-added it with the bit you mentioned quoted (you can do that by adding "quote=" to the citation template, like this). Thanks for pointing it out!

. — Czello 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're owed this one.

Erasmus Star
Awarded to Czello as part of the Wikipedia community collective win of the 2015 Erasmus Prize

You were here for that, thus you're owed this star. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two "new" editors at Uyghur genocide

Staygyreo (134 edits), Dena.walemy (109 edits). Interesting timing, similarities, POV. Obviously not new accounts, but not enough evidence to prove socking. // Timothy :: talk 11:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Hmm, I'm not sure I'm seeing it. Is Staygyreo's only edit go the Uyghur page this renaming? — Czello 12:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, I know its not enough to bring up elsewhere. I hope its not PS or a twin. // Timothy :: talk 12:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I'll keep an eye on both accounts and let you know if I spot anything suspicious. — Czello 13:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having posted below re an unrelated sock, I noticed this discussion and thought there would be no harm mentioning some other sock activity at Uyghur genocide. I've no reason to think they are connected to the editors above and I think it is their first sock to have visited this article but User:78.150.38.110, on the talk page, is pretty clearly the latest sleeper in the sock farm of User:Cassandrathesceptic, the overwhelming bulk of whose edits have been by IP sock. Handy to have others aware though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politialguru socks

The User:Politialguru sock farm is active again and I've been reporting activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru for the last few days, though it hasn't been picked up as yet. As you've been involved in countering them in the past, I wondered if you mind helping to keep an eye on their activities until action is taken? All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: Sure thing; I already have the SPI page on my watchlist. There's another very active account I also suspect of being a sock, but I have very little proof right now -- but will update that group if I say anything that passes the WP:QUACK test. — Czello 13:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, keep me posted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're back. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: Thanks, will keep an eye on him. — Czello 16:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk

"Ideologues"

I think WP:HOTHEADS may be worth a skim. In a DS topic area, it's probably best to avoid terms like that (about the person), and focus on edits ("This statement seems based in ideology not reliable sourcing", etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've edited my comment. — Czello 07:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral College

I half forgot about the fact that national popular vote doesn't equal election win. Ill refrain from writing such edits -- I understand why it could sound biased. Bernspeed (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here after seeing this on the article hist — you generally shouldn't make a single edit to the lead of any high-profile article without discussing it thoroughly on the talk page. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough, Czello

Stop reverting my ACCURATELY SOURCED edits and threatening to block me. 74.221.72.198 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replied on your talk page -- we can talk there. — Czello 14:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something very strange is going on

Those last edits to the Talk:Uyghur Genocide page were NOT done by me. I was responding to another user with a normal post and I have absolutely no idea what happened to change all of those words. I'm not sure if there was some sort of database error when I posted my edit or if someone has logged into my account. Deku link (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On discussion with some people on the discord, it appears to have been an issue with the mobile editor find and replacing. Apologies. Deku link (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku link:No worries, I figured it wasn't deliberate. — Czello 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Era

Regarding your concern for History of WWE that Peackok era isn;t a thing, there are numerous sources that "uyou rvemoved" whcih says it is: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], we can't just only rely on primary sources, WWE never always officially announces eras, in 2008 after WWE's transition to tv=pg ratings (which wwe was before 1997), fans started dubbing it as the start of the pg era, and WWE would finally acknowledge it much later in 2010, same case numerous sources exist that this is the Peacock Era and WWE operates very differently than it did in 2016, so I suggest you add that back, but I ain't that concerned about it and respect your decision as you are a senior user. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where I removed these sources? I can't recall doing so. That said, the reason I've changed it is because I feel it's WP:TOOSOON for this to be declared an "era"; I suspect these sources are using the term descriptively rather than seeing it as a full "era" in the way we categorise it in WWE. — Czello 06:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok, I agree with you then. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]