User talk:Celjski Grad

assassination

yuo reverted my change. the person wasn't killed. that's why it was an attempt. is english not your first language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-59001-33 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about–try using more words in your post. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Guayaquil

Hello, I noticed that you reverted an editor changing the destination of a link to the Church of Latter Day Saints, but shouldn't we change the text of the article to say Latter Day Saints instead of Mormon? Then it would make sense to have it link to the Latter Day Saints. The Guayaquil Ecuador Temple says it's an LDS church. Simas10 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why, given that it’s being used as an adjective to describe the Guayaquil Ecuador Temple. The previous editor changed it saying it was disrespectful, without any explanation. If there's a reason I'm missing, feel free to adjust as you think is fit. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Equinox

You've reverted my edit on the Equinox page, where I expanded the wholly incorrect statement "On the day of the equinox, the Sun rises exactly in the east and sets exactly in the west".

Would you care to explain why you've done that? Your comment says "already mentioned below", but the prominence of this incorrect statement at the head of the article is a major problem. The part of the article below (refraction/upper limb/lower limb) is dealing with a separate issue - that of the day being longer than the night. It does nothing to correct the erroneous statement that the Sun rises due East and sets due West. ~2026-50995-73 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I reverted it because the first paragraph of the lead needs to provide a general introduction of the article, and needs to be accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Talking about the sun's disc, atmospheric refraction, altitude relativity all within the second sentence of the article is way too much technical detail; "rises exactly in the east and sets exactly in the west" is perfectly fine as an intro. As the edit summary started, the caveats are discussed (still in the lead) in the second and third paragraphs. Repeating this in the first paragraph adds nothing. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but this statement:

"On the day of the equinox, the Sun rises exactly in the east and sets exactly in the west"

... is factually wrong, and should not be stated as a truth.

Perhaps we could change it to:

"On the day of the equinox, the Sun rises almost exactly in the east and sets almost exactly in the west"

Do you agree? ~2026-50995-73 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that seems reasonable. Celjski Grad (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Good - I've made that change now. ~2026-50995-73 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment

It appears youve removed several comments youve made on my talk page and i would appreciate that you would leave them there so i can work with you instead ofthat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluentlol (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The comment I left (one, not several) was in error so I reverted it. Celjski Grad (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

IP user causing dissruptive editing

I notice the user @~2026-52842-23 has done disruptive editing about deleting AI notices that you have also noticed. They have reverted my revert without explanation so I will warn them again and inform an administrator if nothing changes. I love RYCBARM (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, let me know if you need help filing an ANI notice. I assume they are also this user.

Celjski Grad (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Marlena3032

I'm starting to come around to agreeing with your take about . I no longer think it is simply a language barrier issue. The user appears to be obstinate and ignoring guidance and ignoring warnings, over time. I see warnings, across at least 4 separate months. What can be done here about this? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yup, it almost appears willful. I'm sure there's enough concern to bring to ANI if someone wanted to put a case together. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I mainly stick to improving articles in article space with research and citations. I'm not good at that other stuff. :( -- Princessa Unicorn (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Introducing the revamped uw-mos1 template

Hi, Celjski Grad. I noticed that you have used {{uw-mos1}} to advise users about MOS issues—thanks for that. The uw-mos1 template has always suffered from vagueness; if you look at this example, you'll notice it doesn't say anything about what MOS rule they broke, making it nearly impossible for the user to understand: 1) what they did wrong, 2) how to fix it, or 3) how to avoid making the exact same error next time. In brief, if used without additional wording, the uw-mos1 template assigns blame without explanation or remedy, and is virtually useless to help a willing user improve.

The good news is that the template has been revamped with new features, in particular, a couple of different ways to signal what MOS rule was broken. There are two new parameters you can use for this; please see the doc page, and especially the §§ Notes​ and Examples sections. Next time you use the template, please try out the new features to help the user understand better what they are being templated for. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out! Celjski Grad (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Celjski Grad. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Storytaco

Hi, Celjski Grad! I'm a representative of Storytaco, as disclosed on my user page and the company's talk page. I've been updating the company's Wikipedia article as it seems it is not quite updated and lacks plenty of information (available in our website). As I'm new to editing Wikipedia, I really appreciate your comments and help! I just wanted to check if my recent edits follow Wikipedia's guidelines and whether there's anything I should change before moving forward. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSTACO (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The COI notice I posted to your talk page lists your responsibilities as a COI editor:

• Avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors
• Disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI)
• Propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions
• Avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming)

Points 1 and 3 provide direct guidance towards next steps if you have changes you wish to see made to your company's article. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought the rule was NOT to make large changes to articles about your company or own page, not merely avoid it. Typos and things of that ilk excluded. I always crack up about the colleagues part nowadays; these days, so many people in so many fields are too hyperconnected which is one reason Wikipedia has gotten so much more unreliable, biased, and often leaves pages with things people are doing soon ten or twenty years ago. If someone ate ice cream tacos in their early childhood and knew the ice cream man, is it a conflict of interest to write about froyo versions? If I worked in food science early in my career am I unallowed to edit sections related to it because I did or I ceased working in that subarea of science but was well-acquainted with people who were or are? ~2026-59047-67 (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

The above guidance was taken directly from the conflict of interest warning template. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Daily Herald

I see you've undone my edits to the Daily Herald publication in Chicago. I work for Tribune Publishing, the current owner, and all of the information added or deleted can be verified with the change of ownership. ~2026-55341-02 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I see that it was already in the article, apologies and thanks for reinstating the changes. As an employee, please be aware of Wikipedia requirements when editing with a conflict of interest. Celjski Grad (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Stop interfering

do you live in this township?I was born and raised here,I know every street of this place and it's history Konshu 2T (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't live in a township, so my guess is no I don't. If I reverted a change you made (you've given zero details) it's probably because you didn't include a reliable source. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

reliable source was attached! I pasted a link there of Kenyan botanical gardens...you don't live here,focus on your area of residency Konshu 2T (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't get to ask others to not do something; not without citing a policy. As far as I know, there's no policy prohibiting people from editing places that they don't live in. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 12:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I checked again–your changes were reverted because they included a malformed link to a file sharing site. File sharing sites are not reliable sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

who are you Konshu 2T (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm Celjski Grad, as it says at the top of this page. Who are you? Celjski Grad (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

bro are you still there Konshu 2T (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I am a random passer by. It should be noted that everyone is free to post anywhere unless specifically prohibited. I am a talk page stalker of many user's talk. When you post on other highly active user's talk, it's very common to receive a response from another user other than the owner. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

i need a favor from you Konshu 2T (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Help

Help me edit the map of this town and post it on the town article.plus the coordinates please 🙏plus don't erase anything available there at this moment Konshu 2T (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You may also ask for help from e.g., the Teahouse, but since Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers, they're not required to respond to requests in any order. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:39, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for cleaning up my talk page. We're dealing with an anonymous editor who is vandalizing articles on a massive scale. I hope they'll be blocked and won't bother us anymore. Latitudemix (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I reported them to AIV, hopefully soon! Celjski Grad (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's true

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie%27s_Kitchen&diff=1381350377&oldid=1381346755 — VPP (t/c) 20:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding the source. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Неlloy. Здравствуйте!

Здравствуйте, извините, что по-русски. А вы вообще блокируете за вандализм, как Q-bit array? Или нет. Просто интересно. ~2026-56666-46 (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Invitational

Hello. Thank you for your interest. We are the organisers of the upcoming 2027 edition of the Monte Carlo Invitational and updated the article to reflect the tournament's planned return in May 2027.

As the organising body, we are the primary source for this announcement. I also added a citation with the website. Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-57058-61 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your tireless work in RC patrol and countervandalism. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 17:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Removing edit summaries?

Hello, I see you often on RC patrol and wonder if you can help me with something. I warned a user about this unconstructive edit summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi&diff=prev&oldid=1382144384

Is there a way to delete the edit summary? GreyZoneLife (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit summaries can be redacted, but only by administrators. Usually, this is done if it contains offensive or personal information. The edit summary that you’ve linked to doesn’t appear to be particularly concerning, what is it that you wanted removed? Celjski Grad (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. To me it's biased political commentary that's not helpful or necessary to explain the edit. I'm new so still learning how severe issues need to be to warrant various reverts/redactions. GreyZoneLife (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Congratulations on your vandalism reverting while i am not patrolling! Avidpersooo (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Creating a Wiki page

Hi I’m really sorry I thought I could overwrite and duplicate a page for myself I was wondering if it’s possible to make a Wikipedia page for myself Yusuf Mohamed I realised you have redone it and it’s constantly being updated and edited and removed could you please give me any guidance on how because I am very confused. Yusufmohame (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, a couple things. There's already an article for "Yusuf Mohamed", is that you or are you a different person? If you are a different person then a new article needs to be created rather than changing the existing. Secondly, and regardless, editing or creating articles about yourself creates a conflict of interest. With a conflict of interest, you have specific responsibilities when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. Those are detailed here. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Why are you removing?

Why are you removing the notable people I added? Lekakrasniqi (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any of your edits. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

But I did just now--are you editing while logged out? As my edit summary said, the first two people have no ties to this town and are from Germany and Switzerland, not Kosovo. The third is unsourced and has no article so appears to be non-notable. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

All of them have ties to deçan, why would you remove it? Annoying Lekakrasniqi (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Dardan was born in Stuttgart, Germany, there are no indications that he lived in Decan. Tolaj was born in Aigle, Switzerland, nothing in his article says he lived in Decan. Berisha has no article and no source is provided that he was born or lived in Decan, so he's both not notable and unsourced for this list. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Ren ☺ (Talk) is wishing you a Happy Halloween! Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:BlueStaticHorse/Happy Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ren ☺ (Talk) 22:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Please add Elezaj to this our name was changed from Lelcaj when we moved to stoj ~2026-58166-14 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I saw you responded to my change on Frank Ryan’s profile. I’m new to making changes on Wikipedia and hope I can ask a question. My evidence for the change is that it is shown correctly in the French Wikipedia page

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ryan_(biologiste)

and that I am related to him. How can I resubmit with sufficient evidence? Do I need more? ~2026-58881-12 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Greetings—as it's user-generated content, the French Wikipedia article itself can't be used as a source, but the references within can if they themselves are reliable, secondary sources. Which English article are you trying to change and what did you want to add? Celjski Grad (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hello, Celjski Grad! 😊 While I was patroling Recent Changes, I saw that every piece of vandalism was cleaned up by you when I was going to clean up every piece of vandalism all by myself! Kudos, Celjski Grad! Congratulations! 👏🏻 Happy editing and best wishes, Zahrazamedahmedi 💬My Talk Page💬 🫗My Mistakes🫗 18:58, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations! 😇 Zahrazamedahmedi 💬My Talk Page💬 🫗My Mistakes🫗 18:58, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit to Parinya Charoenphol page

I understand that you do not think that I was being civil when explaining my edit to this page. Frankly, I don't think requiring a citation for the idea that trans women are women is very civil.

Frankly, the fact that I have received this message while that particular "Citation Needed" apparently went unchallenged makes me question Wikipedia's integrity, and yours, given that you are apparently only concerned with "civility" where it concerns people whose edits are specifically intended to dehumanise people. I see you have a badge for fighting vandalism, which I think editing a page with the sole purpose of denying the subject's identity very much constitutes.

If you want a more "civil" explanation: I edited it because the notion of "her first fight as a woman" having a "Citation Needed" tag is alienating to LGBTQ+ individuals and affirms transphobic and fascist ideologies. I have thus removed that tag, and reworded the paragraph in a way which, I feel, both continues to affirm the person in question's preferred gender and which is less likely to attract the ire of transphobic editors. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit summary of "Screw you". WP:CIVIL works both ways. Wikipedia editors are run by volunteers; just because you found a questionable change in a given article doesn't mean it was seen or approved by anyone, let alone me. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let me start by acknowledging my incivility and apologising for it. I probably should have stepped away from the PC for a moment before I wrote both the comment and the subsequent response.

I know what you were referring to. I would like to make clear that I have no objection to your bringing me up on the civility rules in and of itself.

However, what concerns me here is, firstly, the speed at which I received your reply. The response to a mild insult directed at someone who has made a transphobic edit was almost instant, while the edit itself went unchecked for who-knows-how-long. Surely, if you were alerted to my edit instantly, then there must have been someone who was alerted to the edit in question with similar quickness. If this is the case, then that person did not appear to have your motivation for immediate reprimand. If it is the case that my comment was reported to you, then my question is, once again, where were these volunteers' itchy report button fingers when the edit in question was made? It really does look like a "Screw You" directed at someone who is certainly not civil themselves, and who is probably long gone, is deemed more worthy of the time it takes to send a message than blatant transphobia.

"...just because you found a questionable change in a given article doesn't mean it was seen or approved by anyone, let alone me." I would just like to point out that at no point did I allege that you were the one who approved the edit in question. As indicated above, and I could be wrong here, I simply find it difficult to believe that no one was alerted to the edit in question, given how quickly your response to mine came.

Speaking of your response, it did not acknowledge any part of my summary other than the "screw you". My comment was removed, so forgive me if I have misremembered exactly what I said, but it did NOT simply say "Screw you". It explained the nature of my objection: Trans women are women, this does not require a citation.

Now, like I said, the comment has been deleted, so I don't expect you to be able to recall it word-for-word, but I also don't expect you to describe it as "your edit summary of "Screw you"", which makes it look to anyone who reads this like that was all I said. I would like to point out: lying, and quoting an editor in a way which takes what they said out of context, are specifically listed as examples of uncivil behaviours on the page that you linked.

Your response read as follows: "Hello, I'm Celjski Grad. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Parinya Charoenphol that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you."

Firstly, to quote the page you linked: "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages (which your response reads as) to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers. Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message."

Secondly, and I understand that what I said was not civil, and I once again apologise, however, I really do not see why it is too much to ask for a little acknowledgement of the edit itself, why I made it, and why I might have been uncivil in doing so.

Moreover, Wikipedia would seem to agree with that assessment. To once again quote the page you linked (under "Dealing with Incivility"): "When faced with an isolated example of incivility, consider ignoring it and simply moving forward with the content issue. And if necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue."

Note that the point is made, and then reiterated, that in cases such as this one, your focus should be on the content issue.

Not only did you ignore that issue, but, in your subsequent reply, you said: "...just because you found a questionable change in a given article...". Frankly, this reads to me like you were trying to downplay my concern about the content.

Again, I acknowledge that what I have said thus far is uncivil, I acknowledge that I should have considered my previous comments more carefully and calmly and I once more apologise.

However, even if I am off-base about my concerns about the relative responses in the two scenarios, I find your responses indicate that your concern about civility is surface level at best. I think that I am justified in saying that you have also not followed Wikipedia's rules of civility (which you yourself said go both ways). Further, I find that your attitude towards the change of content itself is hardly in keeping with civility. Denying a trans person's identity is not simply "questionable", it is unacceptable, and I find your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that to be very concerning. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if my message didn't take your concerns into account, that wasn't my intention. I (like a number of other editors) monitor the recent changes feed and the heuristic filter flagged your edit as questionable based on the edit summary. I responded to it as I would to any other such, regardless of whether what it was in response to had merit or not. I'm not concerned so much about content in this role but policy.

You are assuming that the editor tagged the subject's gender identity for needing a citation. In my opinion, and assuming good faith, they are tagging the "first fight as a" claim. That is, that this is their first fight since [whatever]. They did not add the statement, it was written by someone else seven years ago. This was not transphobic but a request for a source. All claims must be verifiable by reliable sources, and in their opinion this was an interesting enough fact to require a source. The editor who added the citation needed tag can be found in the article's edit history if you'd like to reach out to them directly. If you can't find it I can point it out to you. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology for not taking my concerns into account and I do understand that I may have reacted a little hastily, especially given, as you pointed out, that I don't actually know that the intention was to be transphobic.

Having said that, I find your saying "I responded to it as I would to any other such, regardless of whether what it was in response to had merit or not. I'm not concerned so much about content in this role but policy" is frankly rather nonsensical. The only "policy" you have shown me tells you to prioritise the discussion of content. What policy are you referring to, and why does it contradict the civility guidelines?

And I do appreciate you setting me straight on the reason for the edit in question, but I can't help but wonder, why on Earth did you not do that from the start? Or even after my first reply? Isn't that what assuming good faith would have you do? Surely you must have realised that not doing so can only ever make the situation worse and waste more of your time?

In fact, as far as this interaction goes, you haven't been following the civility guidelines in any way save for the apology and the fact that you haven't outright insulted me. I wouldn't get so hung up on this if...

a. YOU holding ME to those guidelines weren't the only reason this conversation started in the first place,

b. Your following those guidelines wouldn't have stopped this entire infuriating conversation at the first message, (I mean, has it occurred to you that the reason the guidelines tell you to avoid using templates and focus on the content issue is so exchanges like this one can cool off and end before they go on too long?) and

c. You weren't now saying that you "not concerned" about doing what those guidelines outright tell you to do, but rather following some "policy" which you have not cited or explained in any way.

Look... I could pick apart your latest response even more with regard to the civility guidelines, but I am trying now to assume good faith, and I am not trying to have an argument. I have even read this message back to check the tone for rudeness (it's always going to sound annoyed because I am annoyed). But your behaviour has been in line with the civility guidelines ONLY in the absolute most basic of ways, and your explanation for why that is frankly doesn't make sense.

I'm going to check this page again tomorrow and after that, I'm washing my hands of the whole thing because I have stressed myself enough at this. Please either...

1. Explain what "policy" you are referring to and why it entitles you to ignore the majority of the civility guidelines,
2. Apologise for ignoring the majority of the civility guidelines, thus stressing me out further and wasting both of our time, or
3. Both of the above.

Otherwise, don't respond. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

And I do appreciate you setting me straight on the reason for the edit in question, but I can't help but wonder, why on Earth did you not do that from the start? Or even after my first reply?

Because as I said, I was responding to your edit summary (the relevant policies there by the way are WP:CIVIL and WP:ESDONTS) and not the content. After you continued to describe their changes as transphobic and dehumanizing I looked closer and gave you my opinion.

In fact, as far as this interaction goes, you haven't been following the civility guidelines in any way save for the apology and the fact that you haven't outright insulted me.

I've been nothing but polite and gracious to you in the face of walls of text in response to a misunderstanding on your part and a standard warning template from me. If you feel otherwise you're welcome to report me here: WP:ANI

Celjski Grad (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

"I've been nothing but polite and gracious to you in the face of walls of text in response to a misunderstanding on your part and a standard warning template from me. If you feel otherwise you're welcome to report me here:"

Like I said, I don't want to deal with this anymore. Besides which, I have tried to voice my complaint to you in the clearest possible way and you have just shrugged it off. You do not follow the guidelines that you cite, and you appear to see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Why should I believe the people I report you to will behave any differently?

"Because as I said, I was responding to your edit summary (the relevant policies there by the way are WP:CIVIL and WP:ESDONTS) and not the content. After you continued to describe their changes as transphobic and dehumanizing I looked closer and gave you my opinion."

So your answer to why you did not set me straight from the start is... because you didn't.

I don't want to send you another "wall of text" (and to be clear, there is MUCH MORE I could say about your behaviour), so I'll leave it at that. I won't be coming back to this page so don't waste your breath. Suffice to say: you did not follow the rules that you are volunteering to enforce, and you have no excuse for not doing so.

Hope your week gets better from here. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

My week is fine, thanks. I encourage you to take responsibility for your actions and not to post here again. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I came back to apologise for my tone. Now I AM going to report you.

"I encourage you to take responsibility for your actions and not to post here again."

I apologised for my actions. I made no excuses for them. I thanked you for setting me straight.

You did not follow the rules you volunteered to enforce. You failed to address the issue, thus fanning the flames. You are the one making excuses.

You are the one who has trouble taking responsibility. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

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

I don't know if I have done this correctly. Apologies. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that you've actually posted a report. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Start a new discussion". Click that and populate it with text. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I am writing it now. Also, please see my other comment. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You offered before to show me the original edit, please could you do that? ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

The original edit adding the sentence is here:

The edit adding the citation needed tag is here:

Celjski Grad (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You should be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG before actually filing it. All participants in AN/I are valid subjects of conduct discussions, including the thread filers. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 12:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I am not making the report. I have read the Dispute Resolution page, got to Arbitration, and frankly, this sounds like more hassle than it's worth, considering that all I am really trying to do is get you to see that you could have handled this issue better.

I want to remind you that I have apologised for my initial behaviour, and for my subsequent tone, and admitted that I did wrong (and do so once again). I have also, just so you know, apologised to the person who added "Citation Needed" for the misunderstanding and the insult.

I would however like to reiterate that I think your saying "I encourage you to take responsibility for your actions and not to post here again" was extremely rude and unnecessarily provocative, especially considering that I have apologised multiple times. I would also like to say that I stand by the content and substance of my assessment of your behaviour in this matter, even if I regret the tone in which I relayed it.

I hope that, once this is in the rear view mirror, we can both reflect on what we might have done better on this occasion.

Thank you for your time,

Good day. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that I apologised for my comments about you regarding my misunderstanding ("your apparent unwillingness to admit that is very concerning" etc.) So I am doing that now. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

It's not much of an apology when you continue to follow it up with groundless accusations of incivility and failure to... something. It's not clear. You seem to feel that I'm responsible for keeping you within the guardrails, which I'm not. Hence, "take responsibility for your own actions". Celjski Grad (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Just like to point out that you have once again responded to an attempt on my part to diffuse the situation by being provocative. I'm not rising to it anymore.

If you feel my accusations are groundless, I have tried multiple times to explain them to you, and that is all I can do.

"You seem to feel that I'm responsible for keeping you within the guardrails, which I'm not" I do not feel this way. I do not know what has given you this impression. At no point did I indicate that my breaching of the Civility rules was down to you. In fact, I have apologised for them and taken responsibility on multiple occasions.

My complaints related to YOUR inability to stay within the guardrails which, again, I have already explained multiple times. Ultimately, I am not responsible for regulating your behaviour either, and I also not responsible for explaining your own misbehaviour to you. So I am now going to stop trying to do so. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I think we're both in the wrong headspace to continue this discussion so here I will end it. And I mean it this time. ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

"It's not much of an apology when you continue to follow it up with groundless accusations of incivility and failure to... something. It's not clear."

Okay, I will try to explain it once more.

I assume that you are referring to when I said "you failed to address the issue, thus fanning the flames."

The Civility Guidelines discourage the use of templates when dealing with isolated incidents and new users. They also state: (under "Dealing with Incivility"): "When faced with an isolated example of incivility, consider ignoring it and simply moving forward with the content issue. And if necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue."

Despite this, you replied with a template, and did not even mention the content in question (to be clear, I am referring to the content of my comment.) My early comments (which I again retract and apologise for) were almost exclusively about my mistaken impression that transphobia had taken place. In particular, I was angry about the fact that the apparent difference in response to transphobia compared to that for a fairly milquetoast insult. Again, I understand now that I was off-base here.

Given all of this, I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that, if you had followed the guidelines more closely, and added either an acknowledgement of my anger OR simply pointed out to me that I might have been mistaken (note how neither of these necessarily require you to check the edit history), that this unpleasantness might have been avoided, or at least cooled off much quicker.

I also do not think that it is unreasonable to say that the way in which you did reply: "I was referring to your edit summary of "Screw you". WP:CIVIL works both ways. Wikipedia editors are run by volunteers; just because you found a questionable change in a given article doesn't mean it was seen or approved by anyone, let alone me." Only served to flare tempers further. As I have already explained, your quote from my edit summary makes it seem like there was no other content other than "screw you" (this is a public forum, remember), and the whole comment can be read, as I have explained and as you have acknowledged, as actively downplaying the concerns I obviously had.

To be clear: I DO understand that none of this was your intention. If I did think that, I wouldn't bother trying to explain it to you because there would be no point. And I acknowledge that the bulk of the responsibility for the tone of this conversation lies at my feet. I just feel like certain things you did, and which you did not do, served to make a bad situation worse.

Is there anything about the above which you do not understand?

Do you feel that I have misinterpreted the civility guidelines? I fully acknowledge that this is a possibility.

Do you feel that I am being unreasonable? ~2026-59142-02 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're basing all of the below on having received a templated civility warning message, rather than me researching and explaining the core issue for you (which I actually did) . These templates exist solely to help keep you from getting blocked by administrators down the line. At this point I'd suggest filing the ANI report so you can get the closure you're looking for.

In fact, as far as this interaction goes, you haven't been following the civility guidelines in any way save for the apology

I could pick apart your latest response even more with regard to the civility guidelines

your behaviour has been in line with the civility guidelines ONLY in the absolute most basic of ways

You do not follow the guidelines that you cite

You did not follow the rules you volunteered to enforce

You failed to address the issue

Celjski Grad (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit-following and disruptions

* Thanks. Am aware and do not usually do this. But I am going afk til later on and I know people like to revert non-cited things. Not using talk and added cite needed avoids reverts and adds an explanation til I'm around later. This way only people editing the page can see the explanation for the next several hours, not casual article browsers (and I can find it in the article history easily). I realize it would suck if more people do this, but I will find my cite or remove my comment when I return. Never did it this way before but want to write on this later on so also a heads-up to myself, and in case others were about to do similar.

Off-topic but relevant (I don't frequent village pump):

I have noticed a lot of people not actively editing pages lately just seeking out people working on things then doing things like that, or not reading changes and ignoring things like citations just being moved around from other peoples' edits and suggesting they were mine, when I am trying to fix dead cites that were not even wikiworthy. Also the number of people in the last year or two who now see incremental edits to prevent loss of hours of work as things to automatically jump on, thanks, I suppose, to so many people using AI and LLM.

Real people take time to research things; not a thirty second chatbot. They seem to just not want to use the better citation needed or citation needed tags, instead wiping out peoples' work and inciting inexplicable edit wars that aren't even edit wars. I don't mean me usually, though it has happened a couple times. It is done i think to upset people. And articles for improvement seems to be a place those people like to find people to screw with when they get bored.

This is why I hate using talk and people mentioning specific articles.

Then you yourself simply reverted instead of following proper wikipedia citation standards. Why's that? Thanks.

~2026-59047-67, 17:17, 7 November 2026 (UTC) ~2026-59047-67 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

If I understand, you think that there was nothing wrong with adding an unsourced paragraph and a paragraph of commentary to the body of a live article? It's not up to other editors to source your changes and commentary is just indefensible, unless it's a hidden comment. But even then what you wrote was more of a stream of consciousness than anything actionable.

If you don't have the sources immediately at hand there's nothing keeping you from waiting a couple days and making the changes then. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 12:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Gary shiede

I don't know how to add citations and stuff, I just know he works as a coach at my school because I know him Russianmemegod (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:RS give a good overview of what constitutes reliable, secondary sources, and WP:CITE explains how to reference the citations in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I think I fixed it Russianmemegod (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

It's a fix that didn't work; cite self is a great template for social media, but Wikipedia isn't one. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 21:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I tried my best but where else would I get that source Russianmemegod (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of universities and colleges in Tanzania, a link pointing to the disambiguation page East African was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for backing me up with that one uncivil user :3 CloverTheCrow ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 18:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Unfortunately a lot of (younger) editors think they're on TikTok or Roblox and don't know how to engage respectfully. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

JOYRIDE.

Hello !

I notice that you have reverted my modification on the Joyride page ( by Kesha ). I don't understand your point, taken into account that this stylization is the wish of the artist (. / period, symbolizing her new freedom and the end of her abusive contract). I also made sure to add it with the mention of "stylized", I did not replace anything in the article, I simply added a precision. Gaby040808 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources claiming this, and almost every source use regular sentence case when mentioning the song. I'm not that invested in it if you change it back, but note that every word on the album is written in all caps, not just the song titles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxVTvyIjy1M&t=68s Celjski Grad (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but while checking at her apple music page for the album (https://music.apple.com/us/album/1804117398) and at one of her Instagram post (https://www.instagram.com/p/C8-lHvuOnOM/), the track are still in capital letters followed by a ".". So this seems intentional, and as I said, it has a deep meaning for the artist. ~2026-59776-56 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

ُBlocking me on the Egyptair page

The info on Egyptair's fleet of a A350-900 is wrong. The airline received its 5th A 350-900 a few days ago and a B 737-Max last month. I have unsuccessfully tried to update the info but you blocked me due to an error I committed. Please update the info and unblock me. Here is the reference https://www.aeroscopeafrica.com/en/2467-2/ ~2026-59017-05 (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and have no way of blocking you. The edit of yours that I reverted had removed the entire fleet table from the EgyptAir article. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Clyde Phillips

Hi, I was just looking through the references for a DoB but couldn't find anything. Thanks for reverting the editor. So far, the only DoB I can find is Rotten Tomatoes . I know that RT can be used for reviews and critical analysis, but I wasn't sure about DoB. I'm assuming not as bios on RT seem to be user generated? Knitsey (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I missed that, but as you (and WP:ROTTENTOMATOES) note, Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't be used for biographical information. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks Knitsey (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Something interesting...

I noticed you just reverted an edit from someone in the U.S. Congress on Scott Colom. ✦Inzessin✦ ^(talk) 20:09, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Ha that's pretty funny—and funnier that the Org is so precise. Well, at least it wasn't a controversial change. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I would have thought that temp accounts would have prevented seeing these kinds of edits, but apparently they added a new tag. You may have already seen this, but if not the article on the old CongressEdits bot may be a good read. ✦Inzessin✦ ^(talk) 20:37, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I actually didn't see the tag (also funny) until just now. I have TAIP viewer rights and saw it in the ASN WHOIS. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Two faces of Dr Jekyll

This is literally in the plot summary and this is what makes this adaptation stand out. Try to be constructive instead of reverting right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-60158-29 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I see that now and have restored your edit—apologies. Celjski Grad (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2026 (UTC)