User talk:Czello

	Archives
	User talk:Czello/Archive 1; User talk:Czello/Archive 2; User talk:Czello/Archive 3; User talk:Czello/Archive 4; User talk:Czello/Archive 5; User talk:Czello/Archive 6; User talk:Czello/Archive 7; User talk:Czello/Archive 8; User talk:Czello/Archive 9; User talk:Czello/Archive 10; User talk:Czello/Archive 11; User talk:Czello/Archive 12;

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My Bad

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Thank you

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]