User talk:Czello

Far right Advance UK

I appreciate you have a source. But who are you? What is your source. Advance UK take issue with being labelled far right - see their posts on X. I am happy to discuss further but you must appreciate that in the UK (are you British) far right is a perjorative term used by political opponents. Have you read their postings? Dunkelmann (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Whether they protest the label is not relevant. See WP:MANDY. No party is ever going to not protest that label.

The source is in the article, and whether I'm British or not is also not relevant. — Czello ^(music) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am sorry. But when there is a dispute who decides whether it gets left, amended or removed. As a novice at this I understood everyone has an opportunity to amend. But it seems there are editors who have a final say. I am learning so help me out here. I see you have a lot of experience and I have none.

How do I raise a dispute over the use of the term?

If someone edited a page of a famous person and misdescribed them presumably some check would be made? I wonder if it is possible to see why prior editors used the term? Dunkelmann (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No editor has a final say on Wikipedia, not even admins. Everything is decided by WP:CONSENSUS building. You've done the right thing by starting a talk page discussion - I'd wait and see if more people chime in before taking it further. — Czello ^(music) 14:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Triple Crown (professional wrestling)

Hi @Czello. Since 81.106.144.198 has been blocked for one week, but there's another Triple Crown article the IP involved before that, which is messy and fancruft edits. Would you take a look? Thanks for your time. 183.171.120.139 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean the professional wrestling one or a different one? If so could you link it and I'll take a look. I've taken a glance through the professional wrestling one but everything appears to be sourced (although the male NWA entry seems to use a spurious Wordpress blog). — Czello ^(music) 11:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thrash Metal

Don't trust unreliable sources, thrash is very aggressive, progressive rock has nothing, its evolution is speed metal. All the rest is just a forcing filler and always speculative.

You are the only ones to create this mythomania, in the other languages speed metal is the fundamental actor in the creation of Thrash, there is no need to think about it, the other is a forced invention to magnify a genre that is not technical at all nor fast, well look at you. 181.42.43.118 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The statement is talking about the technicality in relation to thrash, not the aggression. I specifically moved the wording so that "aggression" is associated with punk, not prog. — Czello ^(music) 07:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Uh oh!

Looks like Damo/Skyler is back on deck. New IP/One of the IPs previously reported. Same provider and general area of New Zealand. He's accusing me of WP:OWN wrongly. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And again here. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Best thing to do is open an SPI. They won't be able to do a checkuser but the evidence might do it. — Czello ^(music) 06:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you be able to do it? I just could not be bothered. I just stopped myself from returning fire on the Rhea Ripley talk page. A source there would solve everything, and I already said the doco itself was not enough due to the controversy Bryan Alcarez referred to. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm on mobile for the foreseeable future so I don't think I can I'm afraid — Czello ^(music) 06:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for grave dancing on User:Hun Narkphanit. I saw that he was a sockpuppet who reverted some of my edits I thought it be a great idea. It is my mistake and I take responsibility. KashanAbbas (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

My Bad

I didn't know currently was a term that Wikipedia didn't like. Cenation Dog (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries. WP:CURRENTLY is good reading for this; typically we like to say "As of XXXX, they are signed to" — Czello ^(music) 11:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cenation Dog (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

List of AEW Women's World Champions

I think it is time to start it. 10 champions and 15 reigns while men's title has 9 champions and 14 reigns, and it already has its own list. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'll put it together when I get a moment! — Czello ^(music) 17:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

BlueAnon?

The thread was closed, but I couldn't help but notice your use of the term BlueAnon. BlueAnon is not a thing. It's a right wing rhetorical trick that employs whataboutisms to downplay the importance of QAnon in the MAGAsphere, while simultaneously painting legitimate criticism of Donald Trump as conspiracy theories. It's just another name for "Trump derangement syndrome". 46.97.170.26 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's a way of pointing out that there are wild conspiracy theories about Trump that are on the level of those coming from MAGA, e.g. stolen election theories. — Czello ^(music) 13:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on the subject does not support your claim. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not concerned. — Czello ^(music) 21:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Relationships

Czello, the thing is we typically do only marriages in a BLP, unless we're talking about well-documented and important relationships. What we have here is really not that. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

In all fairness, we typically have included relationships like these when they're between two notable wrestlers. — Czello ^(music) 17:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't know what fairness has to do with it, but outside of rasslin, no. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Vadalism

Instead of vandalising Wikipedia by reverting factual edits consider adding to the Encylopedia instead. 185.13.50.183 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Please understand what WP:VANDALISM is. — Czello ^(music) 12:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

The illuminati thank you for the edit! Knitsey (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Turnstile

Some new user from 24 hours ago are messing with all in turnstile count that was revelaed and changing the ones from years ago,saying there is no rule that wikipedia uses turnstile count 2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. That was me. So moderator, I've told this user that turnstiles are not a good way to measuring the actual attendance of events. I've been to numerous events from all varieties, including AEW All In 2025, and I've told this user that several people did not have to go through a turnstile and got their tickets scanned (including mine) to speed up the process as it was busy. I've also specified that the article in his source stated that the actual attendance was closer to what WrestleTix had aggregated, which was at 27k. If there is an official rule that states you are to follow turnstile, then I'll oblige. If not, every other major professional wrestling event should be reverted to the total attendance as opposed to turnstiles. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually Czello is the user who said we have to use the turnstile count and imposed that,that’s why i’m asking him,i hope you realize that,we use independent sources not i went there and what not 2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

My friend, I not once said that me going there was an actual source. I'm recounting my experience which I've told you, resulted in several people not going through turnstiles which automatically means the turnstile number is wrong. Total attendance listed in the wrestlenomics article, which is 23,759, is closer to the actual number than the turnstile count. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

First

the wrestlenomics article mentions 21,973 is the turnstile count and the rest is the people that work for the stadium

meanwhile

confirmed by meltzer as well which is a reliable wiipedia source https://www.f4wonline.com/news/aew/aew-all-in-texas-actual-attendance-revealed/

The news comes from public records obtained by Wrestlenomics that revealed the actual turnstile count (aka tickets scanned for those coming into the venue) at 21,973 which included 274 suite tickets out of 678 that were actually sold. Actual attendance in the venue was listed at 23,759 according to the documentation. While not specified, the difference could be arena workers and other personnel.

https://x.com/davemeltzerwon/status/1976373483304255976?s=46 2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop making new topics every single time. Just reply to the same one. Total attendance also refers to humans in that venue who did NOT go through a turnstile, which is why the total attendance is closer to the actual attendance as said. Watch Brandon Thurston's video covering this story, he explains it. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Literaly Czello agrees with the tunrstile count being used because he is the one user who changed all the wrestlemania attendance figures to the turnstile count,we don’t have a proof of what you are trying to say,brandon thurston himself is the reason all in 2023,2024 got changed 2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmW3B3F1_qU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwrestlenomics.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE He says he thinks the turnstile count is very loose and inconclusive. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

and again, you're disrupting Czello's page. Stop making a new topic and reply to a new one. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Moratorium

In your close of the Reform Uk far right topic you said they should bring it up in 2026. But I wanted to say I disagree with that because as far as I know the moratorium on a RFC for right wing to far right is decmemebwr this year. And I think it could be useful to have one when it becomes available given how the last closed discussion prior to this one went. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

AFIAK there was never an official moratorium put in place; it was a suggestion after the first RfC to wait 6 months, but since then we had a second RfC, hence why I've suggested we push the next discussion forward also. — Czello ^(music) 12:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Idk what the offical process looks like but it seemed to me to be consensus on it as multiple people supported a moratorium and no one disagree.Alsothe moratorium I am discussing was at or after the last RFC as far as I remember. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to the discussion you're talking about? — Czello ^(music) 12:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure I am referring too this one:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reform_UK/Archive_3

I did get a bit confused so apologies this wasn’t after the last RFC it was another RFC at the same time as a as the other one and in it everyone who comments on a moratorium agreed with it with three people wanting a moratorium of 6 months you didn’t specify and someone else wanted one for a year. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Just realised I linked the whole archive apologies I meant this particular RFC by this name in that archive:RfC: Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

So yeah, this was as the first RfC concluded, hence why I suggested that the second RfC should probably push that debate onwards by an extra few months. After all, the second RfC ignored the moratorium. I'm guessing this is because only five of us agreed with the moratorium, and typically they have much more wide-ranging consensus.

So basically I'm not really sure if the moratorium is in place or not - if it is, it's already been ignored quite brazenly. Probably the best bet is to simply close new discussions like I did with the one today. As for when the next discussion should take place... meh, I suppose let's see where we're at in December, though personally I think it should go into the spring. — Czello ^(music) 14:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You beat me to it!

You beat me by just a few seconds, reverting this haha. Good job. Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

😄 — Czello ^(music) 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record

That edit to Dave Metlzer's reputation section already includes the controversies he has been involved in so there is no need to consider it as WP:OR Unknownuser45266 (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

But the statement was forming a conclusion based on those controversies, which is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. — Czello ^(music) 10:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

DRN notification

Please be advised that WP:DRN#Your Party has been opened, and you are named as a party to the dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Moratorium

Hello I have seen you just closed a discussion saying there is a moratorium. But checking the discussion where the moratorium was agreed the consensus looks like it was a moratorium on an RFC on the topic far right rather than any discussion at all Talk:Reform UK/Archive 3#RfC: Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Tbh a there's not a huge gap between a regular discussion and an RfC. The point is that this endless debate goes nowhere. — Czello ^(music) 10:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Your Party colour

There doesn't seem to be a source. But what then is to be done with the Councillors seat count bar in the infobox (I know it's barely visible), or other articles such as those for opinion polling? Is there a "neutral" or "unknown" colour for these circumstances, to use as a temporary measure? (e.g. by changing the colour code in the module). ~2025-34464-66 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Something like this (or a slightly different shade)?    Unknown ~2025-34464-66 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, typically we go for greys for this sort of thing. However I think given that their conference should be soon this is probably a temporary problem. — Czello ^(music) 11:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

But then that's an argument for keeping it in the infobox. Once it was added to the module, rightly or wrongly, the genie was out of the bottle. The party color template has been used in several articles, in addition to the Your Party (UK) article:
Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
Hastings Borough Council
Glasgow City Council
Lancashire County Council
A different colour has been used in Walsall Council. Forgive me, but you can see that it is inconsistent to remove it in one place, but leave it elsewhere (including the seat bars in the infobox)? Things may be clearer in 10 days or so, but there won't necessarily be any verifiable source even then. The colour as specified in the module is the colour on the party's website, and on its documents (which incidentally, say nothing about branding). Personally, if it were up to me, I would put the colour in the infobox and instead of "Red", I would put, say, "TBC" or similar against the colours box. Alternatively, the module could be changed, albeit temporarily, to   (a slightly darker shade of grey, just because I like the code #444444). Is there a risk then, though, that newer readers may think that that is the party colour?
However, I won't pursue this any further, as it is a temporary situation and I'm sure I can live with minor inconsitencies. Perhaps we should just treat it as "lessons learned" for any future similar cases. Walsall will need changing in due course, though, one way or another (I doubt the party will use that colour).
(formerly ~2025-34464-66; my TA# only lasts for a browser session). ~2025-35205-32 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Czello. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Giraffer (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP monitoring for Republican Party RfC

Given you just had temporary account viewer rights granted, I’m wondering if you would be willing to use it to monitor the soon to be RfC for the Republican Party page as the chances of people abusing temporary accounts for it is high. If not, no worries Retr0r0cket (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I should be able to, yes - I'll review the permissable uses of it just to make sure that wouldn't be in violation, but I think that should be fine. — Czello ^(music) 08:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Great thank you so much! Retr0r0cket (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

List_of_Bullet_Club_members

Hi Czello. Would you keep an eye of the article? Because some of temporary account keep adding associates to the stable members article. ~2025-42657-26 (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure — Czello ^(music) 13:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the twinkle advice!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for recommending twinkle to me! I had seen people use it before, but I incorrectly assumed it would be more complicated and require permissions. It has already saved me so much time. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this! — Czello ^(music) 11:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

False accusation of OR

It's bad enough to remove something notable and factual. I even unnecessarily explicitly mentioned the Wikipedia article that heavily supports what is already added as a well sourced fact multiple times. So there can be no excuses. Btw a November 2025 study by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research shows women comprising roughly 24% and children under 15 comprising 27% of deaths. When added together that's close to half. I can not revert due to the 1RR rule so ask you to revert your revert yourself as you can't use false policy reasoning to remove extraordinarily well sourced info. It's even more shameful to deny this fact when history shows this magnitude of women and children dying is not something seen in last 2 decades. I will restore it nonetheless unless you can prove it's original research when Wikipedia already covers it extensively. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your reply appears to be coming from quite an emotional place. There was no "false accusation" in my edit summary; you made an assertion but hadn't explained why it was so. You still haven't done so. There's no false accusation there - that's how Wikipedia works. — Czello ^(music) 11:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The number of children killed in the war has been described by international organizations as unprecedented in modern warfare. Within the first few months of the war, UN agencies had reported the number of children killed in Gaza surpassed the total number of children killed in all global conflicts combined over the previous four years. No war in modern history has killed this many kids. Maybe I am being overly sensitive but I cannot agree with people who claim this isn't notable or tries to delete it by using false reasoning. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your whole reply is WP:OR unless you can provide the sources that specify why this is an anomoly. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I gave you a link to the Wikipedia article that ALREADY shows multiple sources supporting my edit. It proves a sizeable portion of deaths are kids. Maybe this is deemed not notable for those who think children's lives mean nothing but it's significant to others. My reply directly above shows this is unprecedented on a global scale in modern warfare in last 2 decades. Only a few months of war killed more kids than the world's total combined conflicts in last 4 years. Here's a source for that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You must see how those links add additional context. Instead of just outright stating the number of casualties, they make statements like More children killed in Gaza in four months than in four years of worldwide wars, says UN. The copy in the prose can't simply state arbitrary facts, it should reflect things like this. — Czello ^(music) 11:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. I find it hard to understand your reply clearly. Are you actually supporting this statement (more children killed in Gaza than 4 years of world-wide war)? Nonetheless I think adding context that's merely a few extra words saying that close to half of casualties are women and children, is very useful to readers especially when many are already saying this is a genocide.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

What I am saying is - what is the justification for adding any statement about the number of women and child deaths? The IP was ultimately right: it's less than half, so why is it being added? We need a justification which is in the sources. So far it seems your justification has been WP:OR — Czello ^(music) 12:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You make it sound like it's insignificant. It's not. I shouldn't need to argue why having almost 50% of deaths being women and children is significant. Per Wikipedia policy, those facts are supported by RS who additionally mentioned killing this many kids and women will lead to long term detrimental impacts on their population. Additionally no modern warfare kills this many kids or civilians overall. The unprecedented nature is frequently reported by RS. Not to mention it violates war crimes to carelessly or deliberately kill way more civilians than combatants, which by itself is notable. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Czello Btw when another editor refused to answer a direct question, I made the mistake of asking them more than a few times despite in my heart of hearts, I knew they were just stonewalling. I will not repeat that mistake which is why I will ask you this once and only once very clearly. Do you oppose me adding in "more children killed in Gaza than 4 years of world-wide war" in the intro? Whether you answer it is up to you, but you should tell me now clearly if you oppose it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Althought it's strange that we have wildly different statements (are women and children deaths "almost half" as initially stated, or "nearly 70%"?), you can surely see how these sources add better context. — Czello ^(music) 13:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, you could simply answer with yes or no to the question being asked. Your vague indirectness doesn't really answer my question. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This question isn't as simple as a yes/no. That's the problem here; there's context that needs to be added. If we're going to make a statement about civilian casualities, and it being prominent in the article, the justification needs to come from sources, not vibes. — Czello ^(music) 13:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you sure you answered the very specific question I had asked you above. If so

then I will have this to tell you - Wut? So in regards to this statement - "more children has been killed than global wars in previous 4 years combined", you now imply there's nothing special about this and also that sources themselves do not make it seem significant. Either you misread or are giving false statements. But I do not intend to fall into a trap to keep replying to correct you to answer a question honestly, otherwise it may be mistaken as bludgeoning so I will tell you this now and for the FINAL TIME, please answer the specific question I have asked you here. And the sources directly says all this (more kids killed in Gaza than any war in last 4 years) and by these very words, are also the ones emphasising that it's unprecedented on a global scale in modern warfare. This meets wiki policy as it relies on sources to directly support how historically significant this is.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying there's "nothing special" about has been killed than global wars in previous 4 years combined, I'm saying that about the original statement that was in the article. That statement is better, though for it to be in the lead I think we'd need it to be attributed to more than one source. Really if there is something notable about female/child deaths, we should include something that's represented across a broad number of sources (for it to be in the lead). — Czello ^(music) 15:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think wiki servers are acting up. I can't seem to reply at all. It seems one of the replies went through. Will talk to you when servers are resolved. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, it seems maybe servers are getting better since last reply went thru quicker. I think the sources themselves are significant. Even if the UN is completely lying, we should still note their findings. I get what you are saying so perhaps this is a more acceptable proposed edit. Saying UN and UNRWA data showed more children having being reported killed in Gaza between late 2023 to early 2024, than child deaths reported globally from all conflicts between 2019 and 2022. United Nations agencies, including UNRWA, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization (WHO), all report an unprecedented surge in amputations during the conflict, and that Gaza ishas become home to highest number of child amputees per capita in modern history. I am not arguing that it's incredibly sad and painful for justifying its addition. More on the fact it's the world's highest tier for these things and you have numerous major organisations stating this. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Something wrong with your talk page

I added a thread. I can't see it. You replied to it. I can't read it and reply. Perhaps you should get that checked out as maybe faulty code. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there might be something wrong on your end; on my screen, your initial thread is directly above this one. Are you viewing on mobile or any other non-standard format? — Czello ^(music) 11:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Never mind. When I switch to desktop mode, I can see your talk page fine. The problem only arises when I am in mobile view mode. It's still an issue that you should try to fix but I have found a workaround. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me!

	It was great collaborating with you!
	OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too! — Czello ^(music) 14:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Trumpism

Hello there, I noticed your edits to the page Trumpism. I was removing left-wing bias from the page. You calling it “whitewashing” is dishonest anti-Trump bias. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not "left-wing bias" if it's sourced, which it is. Please discuss it on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 15:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources can be biased. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Then take it up on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 15:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Problematic edit war

Can you please write "right-wing" instead of "right-wing to far-right"? Unfortunately an obsessed user (his nickname starts with "G") recently edited this article. ~2026-86402-0 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Kurzon

Thanks for your patience dealing with this user. It reminds me the South Park episode, where the kids join the wrestling team thinking it's pro wrestling and the trainer hates pro wrestling because is fake and more popular than the actual sport. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No prob. I feel he keeps getting too many chances and we just go in endless circles. — Czello ^(music) 19:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Reform Britain

I'm going to stop commenting there for now. No idea why my edits keep overwriting those of others, but it's happening, and I don't want that. — The Anome (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries though I wouldn't want you to stop commenting. Are you clicking edit or using the reply feature? Normally using the reply button avoids those kind of issues. — Czello ^(music) 19:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal: more citations needed

Hello Czello, sorry to bother you. I’m writing regarding the page about the company Syensqo. I just wanted to kindly ask whether, in your opinion, the issue concerning the lack of sources has been resolved, and therefore whether it would be possible to remove the related banner. Since I have a conflict of interest, I cannot remove the banner myself. I considered contacting the editor who originally added the banner back in June 2024, but I noticed they have since been blocked. Thank you very much in advance! Any feedback you may have is greatly appreciated. E.D.G. (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@E.D.G.: No problem, I agree with you that the sourcing issue has been resolved, so I've removed the banner. Good work! — Czello ^(music) 07:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) E.D.G. (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

What is your issue

Seems to me like you have an agenda and attack anyone with differing views. Worrying. ~2026-75783-1 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Where did I attack you? I reverted you for adding something unsourced to the article. — Czello ^(music) 13:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Question about Meltzer 5 stars

Hello, Czello. I want to ask for your opinion about the list of 5 star matches. Do you think we should reconsiderate the focus of the article? I mean, 10 years ago, it was a rare event to have 5 stars (except AJPW). Nowdays, he gives not just 5 stars, but 5.25 and 5.5 on weekly basis. There are 318 matches. Also, since he broke the scale with Omega-Okada, the new celing is 7 stars. I agree that his matches were notable and matter of an article, but today it's pretty common. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a fair point to raise, though I'm not sure what the solution is. It could be that if the article becomes too big we split it into two different periods, such as 1980s-2020s, then 2020s-present. We might be a way off that yet, though. — Czello ^(music) 09:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Because to create a new bare minimun at 6 stars isn't fine, right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could split it by "5 stars" and ">5 stars", the latter of which could include those 5.25s. I guess we'd have to calculate whether splitting by time period or splitting by rating would be better/more even. Though I'm more in favour of splitting by time, as that would be more in line with other articles. — Czello ^(music) 10:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit about The German Worker's Party

Hello,

I understood the idea of your edit and why you have done so, but I also believe it is highly incorrect to delete all my work.

My reasoning would be that I have expressed A.Hitler's own thoughts and idea's that he himself mentioned his own writings. Previously Absolutiva, a wikipedia user, had edited and added incorrect writings from A.Hitler which I had changed and wrote into his personal ones.

I believe some changes are alright, but having changed everything I have written is not very fair.

In this case citing "Mein Kampf" would be okay, since most of what I have written is from the book itself and portray's Hitler's emotions and thoughts during this time-line.

Sincerely, Toms. TomsJanbergs (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. There were a few issues with your edit. First of all, the language wasn't very encyclopedic; it was rather flowery, more like a narrative than something neutral. Secondly, we shouldn't use WP:PRIMARY sources (such as Mein Kampf), we should be using independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 22:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Ernest Solvay Prize

Hello Czello, sorry to bother you again. I just wanted to kindly ask you (only if you want to and whenever you have time) for some feedback on the draft about the Ernest Solvay Prize. It’s about an award given to scientists, especially chemists, for their discoveries. These are usually important discoveries, because some of the recipients also received the Nobel Prize. Anyway, since I have a conflict of interest, I wanted to ask whether you think the draft is okay as it is or if there are parts that should be reviewed/modified, or additional sources I should include. As a reference, I used the French article “Prix Solvay pour la Chimie du futur” already on Wikipedia. Thank you for any feedback you may have! One last thing, actually completely unrelated to the request above, I was looking at the articles you created on your user page and, well, as a passionate gamer I just wanted to thank you for the articles about WoW and Hearthstone. :) Thanks very much again! E.D.G. (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The particular discussion is WP:AN/Edit warring#Edit warring over party ideologies at New Party (Brazil). guninvalid (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

talk invitation

i invite you to join talk at iran international article thanks Darklightsd (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)