Jump to content

User talk:Callanecc/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 28

Please help disproportionnate decision on fr wiki

Hi Admin, @Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, and Salvio giuliano: sorry to disturb you, i am convainced i am victim of an abuse of power on wikipedia-fr and i am kindly requesting justice, the subject is about this issue in fact all the time i contribute in only technical wiki pages in english or french but the user Mister Omar-toons is namely known for modifying ethnic fr wiki pages with many subective texts often marked by a hatred towards berber minorities in north Africa, i did no personal attack against him but this member as being used to confused subects asked a punition against me cause i only said that the old tunisian governement repressed tunisian berbers. I find this so disproportionnate and especially before that no admin gave me any right of reply to expalin my position or eventually to appologize, i find this so unfaire and would ask if there is any juste admins that are billingual french to have an eye on french contributors many times we see call for holocosts against kurdish and berber monorities in french and they are not punished, i do not like to see wiki-fr becoming like arabic wikipedia which is not objective noor juste at all towards minorities, it is not all arabic wikipedia pages are not objective: more contributors are casted with bathist nacerist educations so i would ask no miracle for wiki-ar but please for other wiki languages if there is a conflict of sources please if it would be possible to prefere european authors the arabic ones are rarely objective especially when the matter is about ethnis or religions Rami75013 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Drmies, sorry i thought Arbcom if for all wiki sections, ok, so where is it possible to dispute unjuste blok then ? where we can make a "recours" please? i posted an unblock request on my talk and have no answer --Rami75013 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Rami. Je remarquai que vous avez soumis votre demande de déblocage il y a moins d'une heure. Je ne sais pas comment les choses fonctionnent sur le wikipedia français, mais ici, au minimum, il prend un jour pour un administrateur d'examiner votre demande. Donc, pour affirmer que vous avez pas de réponse est prématurée. J'ai également examiné votre contributions. Je vois vraiment une attaque personnelle faite dans cette révision, comme l'a noté sur le tableau d'affichage des administrateurs au wikipedia français. Il semble donc que le bloc est au moins en partie justifiée. Aussi je crois que vous avez cherche du Comité d'Arbitrage français dans ce cas, et ne pas la version anglaise que vous avez trouvé. Comme Drmies dit, nous ne avons aucune juridiction là. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
For my English speaking colleagues: I noticed that you submitted your unblock request less than an hour ago. I do not know how things work over at the french wikipedia, but here, at minimum it takes one day for an administrator to review your request. So to claim that you have no response is premature. I also reviewed your contributions. I definitely see a personal attack made in this revision, as was noted on the administrators noticeboard at the french wikipedia. So it appears that the block was at least partly justified. Also I think your looking for the french Arbitration Committee in this case, and not the English one as you have found. Like Drmies said, we do not have jurisdiction there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Amanda for your reply otherwise believe me there was no intention from my part to offence anybody noor to make apology of racism or hatred ideas, i aknwolege i said that the non objectivity of that member should be the fruit of obvious berberophovia by educational system of the old tunisian regim, i apologyze if he considered it an attack honestly i consider him as a victim of this well known old system and me as an humain or a berber a second victim of this "passif historique". Is that what worths this so disproportionate decision? i wrote no insulte noor offence. Une dernière chose Amanda la page que vous avez citée ci-haut de l'arbitrage en français ci-contre je ne pourrais y faire une requette car je n'ai pas le droit d'y écrire pour une semaine donc comment fait ont son droit de réponde autrement je trouve que c'est système qui n'est pas équilibré comment fait on un recours contre une décision injuste les admins sont des êtres humains il y a beaucoup d'admins francophones qui sont justes mais dès qu'il s'agit de troncher contre un grand ensemble de textes haineux contre les minorités ils ne se mouillent pas trop sans doute il y a des enjeux électoralistes peut être quand il s'agit d'élire un admin les minorités donneront toujours moins de votes naturellement --Rami75013 (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Rami, vous pourrais envoyer un email au comité d'arbitrage français pour une requette de déblocage, ou vous pourrais attender pour le déblocage au fin de la semaine. Je ne connais rien sur les admins françaises, mais je pense que vous pourrais les parler dans la requette. Amitiès, Keilana (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Isaac Parker

On 24 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isaac Parker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Isaac Parker (pictured) was known as the "Hanging Judge" of the American Old West? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Parker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Isaac Parker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:D4iNa4

Hello Callanecc,

D4iNa4 (talk · contribs) who was once blocked by you for using sockpuppets continues disruptive editings. Can you please check Yazdanism (and the source, Richard Foltz)? l have fixed the statement depending on what the source says and cleaned previous version per WP:SYNTH policy. You can read the source to check it. However, the editor reverted me two times for dubious reasons. lndian editor clearly pushes his/her nationalist pov in almost every topic. Please check the editor's contributions. Regars...46.221.194.168 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Template protection - next step ...?

You seem, from what I can gather, to be the go-to guy for the protection etc of the Template:User link so ....

Unable to understand the page's contents I wanted to view the page "source" to see how to write an instruction on my own Use page that would enable someone to copy and paste some text which would then advise me I had been "called" (pinged). It is an idea I saw on another User's page. There are many examples on the template page that show code that does not act as code.

I have not thoroughly checked other template pages to see if their "source" is viewable but of those that I have none are.

Anyway, bottom line is that the User link template explanation is tough to decipher. For instance the words: "The template's second parameter, which is optional," appear before any example with a second parameter is displayed, inferring that the term before the pipe is counted as the first parameter, an understanding that I believe is mistaken.

FWIW

LookingGlass (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmm, well, I think you're misinterpreting that line. The example of the second parameter comes immediately after that line; because it's optional, it doesn't need to appear all in the earlier examples. That is to say, when it writes {{u|Example}}, "Example" is the first parameter and there is no second parameter (which is of course okay, since it's optional). After talking about the second, it gives the example {{u|Guywhositsbehindphilip12|Guy}}, where "Guywhositsbehindphilip12" is the first parameter and "Guy" is the second.
Anyway, if you're looking for a copy-pastable notification thing, there are a few ways to do that. To get wikicode to render in the final page, you can use <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags; I usually further wrap that in <code>...</code> tags, to get the monospace formatting (for an end result of <code><nowiki>...</nowiki></code>; the order is important). There's probably a template that will do that for me, but I've never really bothered to find out, personally. So, I think what you're looking for would be <code><nowiki>{{u|LookingGlass}}</nowiki></code>, which will render like: {{u|LookingGlass}}. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Roy Wallis

Why have you blocked editing of this article? Peter morrell 08:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, the Arbitration Committee decision I linked to states that Scientology related articles are not permitted to be edited by IPs, semi-protection is the means used to achieve this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, is this a permanent irreversible change? If so, how do I get to add important new info about the man and his career, such as his qualifications, and a selection of his published articles? This has nothing whatsoever to do with scientology. Shall I post them here for you to add? thanks Peter morrell 04:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving of removed motion and associated discussion

Hi Callanecc. I may have missed it, but was this removal followed up by archiving the discussion anywhere for the historical record? Some of the discussion there shouldn't just vanish. Maybe copy it in archive tags to a talk page of the relevant case? Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving of removed motion and associated discussion

Hi Callanecc. I may have missed it, but was this removal followed up by archiving the discussion anywhere for the historical record? Some of the discussion there shouldn't just vanish. Maybe copy it in archive tags to a talk page of the relevant case? Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Roy Wallis

I am still waiting for a reply from you regarding an unfinished discussion you have just archived. thank you Peter morrell 04:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

El Shorouk Academy

delete accident news from article speak about academy for education,let accidents in newspaper,thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.37.220.125 (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia articles need to be neutral, which means both negative and positive elements need to be included, see WP:WEIGHT. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

u are great , there are many university have accidents why this accident add ,delete it ,not good for any education to learn students,u know in university there are doctors like formal speaking not an accident from newspaper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.37.172.203 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC) this month is ramadan ,hope u delete this accident and it already in newspaper,there are guidlines for articles for education,and if u can open edit ,so ok,thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.37.172.203 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC) where are u? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.37.172.203 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Toni Pecoraro

Hi Callanecc, a few days ago you blocked User:Toni Pecoraro for being a sockpuppet of User:Giubbotto non ortodosso. Could you please reconsider this block, because I really doubt Toni Pecoraro is Giubbotto non ortodosso. The account is much older than Giubbotto non ortodosso, and they behave completely differently. I took a look at Toni Pecoraro contributions, and they haven't edited any popular music articles. Most of their edits are harmless additions of images to Italian cities articles. All the other accounts you blocked matched Giubbotto non ortodosso in terms of actions, but Toni Pecoraro stood out to me. I think there must have been some mistake. Sro23 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sro, thanks for the note. I've unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUCK/WP:IPSOCK

Hi Callanecc,

WP:DUCK case regarding banned user:WorldCreaterFighter

Compare their contributions with banned 92.236.36.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Spiritclaymore (talk · contribs). It seems a clear WP:DUCK case to me. Moreover, the ips are most probably proxies. 46.221.238.15 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the first one as a proxy, but I'm not convinced on the second. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

block of User: 205.197.242.190 pls

Hi there. I wonder if you can (again) block User: 205.197.242.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whose "contributions" are seldom constructive. DadaNeem (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the content

Please remove the details because its not with my permission Aima Rosmy (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the information on Wikipedia is gather from publicly available and trustworthy sources. If there is something specific you believe is incorrect or if there is another problem please take a look at this page and this page for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocking 174.23.105.204, but...

They're at it under a new IP User:174.23.110.26. Perhaps a range block? They also admit to being User:75.162.239.1 and User:75.162.244.4. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 09:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done before I saw your message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I see that now. Thanks!  :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 09:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Account creator

I'm very active in NYC events and just this month already visited [2 sections of] a local high school class. I'm not sure what else you want from me but in any case I think this should be discussed (or announced or warned) first *before* removal. I could be at an event right now. (see log) cc Pharos --Jeremyb (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Dacey

On 26 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Dacey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Dacey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Dacey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

On Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Starting an article

I saw your reversion here.

I should clarify that I believe my edit was correct. Since Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Your first article transludes {{Article creation editnotice}}, redirecting Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Starting an article to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Your first article will make {{Article creation editnotice}} show up at Wikipedia:Starting an article (which happens to be a redirect).

Note Template:Editnotices/Page/ISO 3166-1, which Template:Editnotices/Page/ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and Template:Editnotices/Page/ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 redirect. But also note, if you edit ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 (link), you get the same editnotice as that of ISO 3166-1.

Redirection (rather than transclusion) seems to be preferred, I'm guessing, because it's cheaper. See the implementation of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Editnotices/Page/List_of_ships_of_the_Second_World_War. Most of the editnotice redirects target actual articles, but they do not transclude, but redirect to a central location. It's a quirk into how editnotices were implemented I suppose. FYI, I also tested double/triple redirects, and the editnotices behave the same way. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I didn't notice that I'd been redirected. I reverted myself shortly after I reverted you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops, never mind! saw the second edit late... We're all good :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Account creator

I'm very active in NYC events and just this month already visited [2 sections of] a local high school class. I'm not sure what else you want from me but in any case I think this should be discussed (or announced or warned) first *before* removal. I could be at an event right now. (see log) cc Pharos --Jeremyb (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, you haven't edited with your main account for around seven months (so is for intents and purposes inactive) and haven't created an account since May 2015 with your main account (and have never needed to use it on your main account) and haven't created an account with your "phone" account since October 2015 (which is the only time you've used the account creator right). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammar patrol

If I haven't somehow misinterpreted your wording, in this edit, I think you may be missing a "to": "...so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply...". I'm pretty sure that's what you meant, and I'd change it myself but I don't have the template editor user right. Mojoworker (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mojoworker, fixed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the AfD for Lima Publishing...

How do you justify stating that the result of the AfD for Lima Publishing is no consensus? The editor that initiated the AfD nomination clearly stated their reasoning for the AfD for Lima Publishing being Not notable, as well as the fact that no other editor "chimed" in to oppose the AfD. I would think that, if the editor that initiated the AfD was the ONLY voice involved, then the result would be delete, NOT no consensus.

So, I am asking that you re-consider your misinterpretation of the AfD nomination outcome before I proceed with a deletion review in an attempt to have your misinterpretation overturned & the correct interpretation (deletion of the Lima Publishing article) put in its place. I await your response. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Threatening a deletion review is not a useful or helpful way to resolve this. If you had asked me about it (without the threat) I would have told you that two years ago, when I closed this, the option to delete and AfD with no feedback other than the nominator didn't really exist. I would also have told you that, given this was two years ago, it would be easier for you to nominate it for deletion again rather do a deletion review, which I am fairly certain would endorse my closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
1) I only recently discovered the article for Lima Publishing, while going through the Wikipedia category for UK publishing companies. I did NOT know of the article's existence two years ago. So, please, do NOT make assumptions about someone based on your own knowledge/experience. Just because you're aware of the article does NOT mean EVERYONE that uses Wikipedia is aware of it as well. 2) I did NOT intend for my statement to come off as a threat; if anything, I was simply stating what my actions would be should you choose NOT to re-consider closing the discussion with the result of no consensus.
Now, I took a look at the section of the article you linked to & it states multiple options for closing an AfD with no comments from any editor aside from the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs). Choosing "no consensus" is NOT the only option. Also, I find it rather inappropriate for you to act in a way that you automatically believe a deletion review would endorse your misinterpretation.
But, in the interest of acting in a civil matter, I will act on your suggestion of re-nominating the Lima Publishing article for deletion. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The date after each signature on the AfD page say February 2014 and on the talk page of the article is says it was nominated in 2014 as well. As I said when I linked that section "when I closed this, the option to delete an[d] AfD with no feedback other than the nominator didn't really exist". Deletion reviews test whether the exercise of the closer's discretion was reasonable - it's within the closer's discretion to close an AfD as no consensus when only the nominator has commented. Continuing to call it a "misinterpretation" is a misinterpretation of that guideline and of my explanation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-albanian propaganda/vandalism

Hello,

May you please tell me why are you supporting the anti-albanian propaganda of user: Zoupan? Why is it okay for him to harass us, constantly vandalize our history and with that, sully us and everything that is holy to us? Does Wikipedia support serbian propaganda? Why is Zoupan tolerated? Can't wait for your answer. :) Theedardanian (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Theedardanian, you appear to be here only to push your point of view. That is generally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia, instead you should consider what being neutral means to people all around the world. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if you want to make changes which other disagree with you should first propose the changes on the article's talk page and ask other editors involved in the dispute to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
"you appear to be here only to push your point of view." Have you read Zoupans articles? Has he proposed those changes? All he has been doing is vandalize albanian-related articles. Also, how is it possible to tolerate serbian name being before the albanian one in an article about an ALBANIAN state? It is pretty obvious who supports whose agenda. No wonder he was tolerated for so long. Biased administrators allow that:) Theedardanian (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Protection of AE Larissa FC

Yes, I did - why, is there a problem? Happy to amend/remove if you feel it is appropriate. GiantSnowman 09:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sorry, should have been clearer, you applied extended confirmed (500/30) and I wanted to check whether you intended to apply semi? Extended confirmed can currently only be applied pursuant to an ArbCom decision or by community consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, you're right, it was meant to be semi-protection! I'll remove completely as the issue looks to have been resolved. GiantSnowman 09:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just curious

You blocked this IP under a range block and I got the impression that it was being used for sockpuppetry. Was it? If so, which account? I think I may have spotted a new one. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:ian.thomson, my block wasn't targeting a specific account when it was made (sorry for being so vague) but stuff like this 75.162.249.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 75.162.196.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 75.162.234.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) &75.162.239.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'll take a look at the account you linked tomorrow. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I still suspect that the IP and account I linked are probably the same user, but I don't think they're the same as the rest of the rangeblock. Don't worry about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

All-Stars (band)

Hi. Could you tell me how exactly I violated the External Link policy? The only refs I added were for album track listings on allmusic and discogs, and I thought they were both generally accepted as reliable sources for that kind of thing. If not, do you have any suggestions for other similar sites I could use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.125.148 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I've had another look and undone my revert based on another look through your edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Have a nice day. 89.233.125.148 (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I've revision deleted (not suppressed) the edit summary. I'll probably need to reverse it if people have a problem with my action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Callanecc. If they do, no worries I'll take it on the chin. It's embarassing more than anything. Now... think I've got a bit of 'revedelling' on the phone dictionary to do! Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 10:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
:) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User Iistal

Hi Callanecc. I've tried to deal with Iistal's abuse of editing privileges many times. I don't have a problem with the unblock, but I wanted some clarification if you can provide it. Is the TBAN "broadly construed", meaning not editing about a living person even if the article itself is not about a living person? In the past that has been something Iistal has done, such as adding unsourced information about living children of a deceased celebrity. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sundayclose, Iistal is banned from "making any edit which relates to a living person" so would include what you describe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Jurabek Karimov

Hi Callanecc. A few days ago you deleted Karimov's page as he did not meet the guidelines for a page creation. If possible, can you please restore this page now as he meets the guidelines now after playing a Davis Cup tie.

Thanks Keroks (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Callanecc ,I apologize about my behavior, but seeing cases of vandalism all the time in the page "List of countries by Military Strength Index", I had decided to ensure the page, meanwhile I want to thank you because you did the right thing protecting that page, I would like ask please Supervise the data from Credit Suisse, many Vandals have did confusion with other data of other page of less importance like Global fire page, Credit Suisse also makes the ranking every year (or perhaps every two years),Thank you!.--LuigiPortaro29 03:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 (talk • contribs)

You were very lucky not to have been blocked given how long you were edit warring and that you have been warned about it before, LuigiPortaro29. Added to this, the edit you were reverting over would likely not be classed as vandalism, as they aren't an intentional effort (made in bad faith) to damage the encyclopedia. You made no effort to communicate with the IP you were reverting which is against the spirit of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. If you find yourself in another edit war you need to stop reverting and try to discuss the matter with the other edit (either on the article's talk page or on the other person's talk page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It has been going on for four days and between them they broke the 250 Revert Rule :D Muffled Pocketed 13:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Joyce

Why have you blocked an IP (i.e. me) while Hillbillyholiday, who has a history of disruptive editing, is free to arbitrarily remove a long-standing sourced section without consensus.109.145.33.161 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're admitting you are blocked user 86.184.245.27? And what "history of disruptive editing" would that be? Who are you? --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You were close to being blocked earlier this month and you also edit via the IP sock User:73.96.114.128. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.33.253 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Despite my moniker, I've never been to America. But whatever, file a SPI, fill your boots. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem edits

Hello Callanecc, could you please check the recent edits at Australian House of Representatives? Thanks JennyOz (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi JennyOz, I've reverted their edits, looks like they are continuing the thing they have about the seat of Herbert (which is held by Labor according to Parliament's website). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I have no idea who to talk to about this, but it looks like the sub-text that shows up on Google when searching for Wikipedia is a little outdated. It says that Wikipedia has over 2.1 million articles, which is technically true, but having 5.2 million there instead would be more accurate. I assume administrators have the ability to edit that text, but if not I hope you can pass this on to someone that can. Thanks! —Atvelonis (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this edit. Too many contributors were too excited about the "news" cycle's preoccupation with phony allegations in the name of balanced coverage. The talk page has multiple discussions of that section, which I raised as probable defamation early on. At this point, no reliable sources are paying attention to the conspiracies, so maybe there will be no attempt to restore the deleted section via talk page consensus. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you hide my contribution on the Machado talk page? ("Article doesn't contribute to Wikipedia's true purpose")

Hi -- Why did you hide the section I wrote on the Alicia Machado/talk page, headed "This article, as it currently stands, does not contribute to Wikipedia's true purpose," as well as close the discussion? I was not posting a "general" discussion of the subject, nor Wikipedia; rather I was giving the specific rationale for including some of the specific, disputed info on A. Machado. I would ask that you unhide my comment. Bruiserid (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The intent was to further the discussion that would improve the page, and to give a rationale for the changes proposed. Bruiserid (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bruiserid thanks for asking about it. I collapsed the section as there were no proposed changes in there and so does not suggest something to actually change but instead a meta-discussion about the theory behind changing the article. Engaging in respectful discussion about specific changes to the article is absolutely important and I encourage you to do so, but make sure you know the related policies before you do (particularly WP:BLP). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Callanec -- thanks for the quick reply. I think discussing the rationale for changing the article is as important, or more so, than detailed, proposed changes (although I mentioned them: use some of the many RS'd references to the legal troubles in Venezuela and to the associations with Mexican narco-traffickers; put them together with the balance of no conviction in Venezuela and whatever questions exist on Machado's baby's paternity; weight the graf appropriately.) If we don't discuss why we believe these inclusions are important on the talk page accompanying the article, where *do we discuss it? As to BLP and NPOV, I've read a lot about them, any number of times, as the first article I ever edited was poor old Brian Williams! There was *lots of conflict on what should be in and out on that page! But we went ahead and argued it out. There's not much arguing here, with respect . . . the clamps are on the article, and then on the subsequent discussion. I guess that's the way it goes . . . but where *would we discuss it? Best, Bruiserid (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
So the way to effectively have the discussion is that rather than mentioning your proposed changes suggest the changes in their own section so that others can comment and we can get the article changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Machado's sexual behavior on "La Granja de los Famosos"

Please explain why you felt it necessary to delete an entire section discussing Machado's behavior on "La Granja de los Famosos". It dealt directly with the accusations Donald Trump leveled at Machado recently, (Redacted). The links I suggested for the article show just how flimsy Trump's claims are. Also she has become an important person associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign. The links I provided were Telemundo, Snopes and New York Magazine, thereby not violating WP:BLP. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As you have continued to demonstrate a failure to understand the BLP policy you have been topic banned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

SPI CHECKUSER NEEDED

I was blocked last December with "SPI allegation and duck" by two admins. Now can you please perform check user and confirm that its not me. My user:Saadkhan12345. I also emailed deltaquad (checkuser) long time ago and no reply and i couldnt post anything on her page with my IP. 110.36.208.114 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing here, using an IP address is block evasion. CheckUser won't solve your problem, you need to wait for an administrator to assess the unblock request and talk to them about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
its not blocked evasion. If a pillow is called airplane by wikipedia doesnt means its an airplane. no one is trying to evade blocks. I just contact a checkuser admin with all the info btw. use your common sense please 110.36.208.114 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Correction needs

Rather than repeat myself, I'd like to ask you to take a look at these discussions [1][2]

As you can see, this editor and myself do not communicate well. I do not think going to the talk pages for these articles is the best idea. Who would respond? For the next move, I'd like to hear your take on the following options:

  • Make the corrections yourself
  • I seek out other reputable editors and make quasi edit requests
  • You or another administrative editor make exceptions for me to make said changes proposed in the linked discussions.

Iistal (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iistal: You should not be editing or discussing either of these articles as they are both living people. So the rest of your request is moot as you aren't allowed to make that request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You could consider it an informative discussion for the well-being of Wikipedia. These are existing errors. Since have been pointed out and brought to your attention, don't you think they should be fixed? Iistal (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You need to leave it alone and move past wanting to make editing about living people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I only had concerns about these 3 particular articles because there were oversights after I had edited them. I was pleased to see you made a change to one. This is the last you'll hear from me on the matter. Iistal (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from leaving items on my user page

...unless you reference just what it is you are leaving the message about. I have no idea why you left two of the same message on my page. Next time, don't bother leaving a message if you aren't willing to follow through with due diligence to reference what you are doing. I can't read your mind. RTShadow (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@RTShadow: I would imagine thinking about your recent edits might provide some background to why these reminders appeared on your user page. -- The Anome (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@RTShadow: They aren't the same, but for two different topic areas (American politics post 1932 and edits relating to BLPs), and are in regard to your edits to Talk:Alicia Machado. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
That does not give you a free pass from explaining yourself. Next time do so.RTShadow (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@RTShadow: Explaining what? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It was the "talk" page, I made no edits, nor did I attempt to make edits, therefore going to my user page and dropping a quasi-threatening tag on my page was not needed, you could have mentioned that in the talk page for the person. Instead you were lazy, and doubled down on your tag to my page, without even stating what you were referencing when you left the tags. And here, you are being lazy again, YOU left the tags, I shouldn't have to explain what page they came from. You are unreal.RTShadow (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Check user please

Can you please check the following users: Tonnytaffoc and Haohaomyy as possible socks of each other and/or MiG29VN. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist, could you please file an SPI case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Have done so, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Minor error

There's an English problem in the second sentence of the last paragraph of this edit. I'm not sure whether "the the" should be "for the" or "to allow the" or something else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Sphilbrick, fixed. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo in motion

In my comments at the motion about removal of advanced permissions, I mentioned a typo (in passing), but it probably got lost in the rest of what I wrote. In the procedure for permanent removals, the sentence "The motion shall be proposed as the most appropriate location..." should have "as" changed to "at". I figured there is no point in my writing more about such a minor thing at the comments page, so that's why I am leaving this message here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right

@L235: Thank you both for taking the time to close this discussion. I had an inquiry in regard to the close. The RfC stated "This RfC is not for discussing the software technicalities of the proposed right." and furthermore discouraged discussion with "Alternative proposals: Please start your own RfC rather than detracting from this one to make your point." It also stated "Technical Permission Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached." and "Script and Tool Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached." Isn't an RfC needed to consult the community about those aspects of the proposal?— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If I'm reading your question properly, yes they do need to be considered in an RfC, just not that one. That is, consensus was needed that something needed to be done but exactly what that was was going to be discussed later (if there was support that something needed to be done). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy: Hello! Sorry for the incredibly late reply; I read the ping but it got drowned out by other notifications. To expand on what Callanecc said: I think there's no other way to read the consensus or the RfC; the minimum possible technical changes to be done to implement broad consensus are to: Remove the (patrol) permission from the Autoconfirmed group, the Confirmed group, and the Pending changes reviewers group; create a new user group Patrollers (localization name: "New Page Reviewers"); give the new New Page Reviewers group the (patrol) permission; and give administrators the ability to add or remove membership for users to the New Page Reviewers group. If you want to make more changes than that (e.g. change access to Twinkle or to any special page – which we did not see consensus for), please feel free to file another RfC, but the broad support for the original proposal to "ensure that users are suitably experienced for patrolling new pages" by creating a new user right compels these minimum technical changes. Please let me know if you have more questions, and I will do my best to answer them more promptly than this one, heh. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kimberley Kitching

Hello! Your submission of Kimberley Kitching at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User Iistal

I don't want to overreact so I thought I would first check with you. Is this edit a violation of the TBAN? The article is about a magazine, but the edit pertains to a living person. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Is there a way to delete or make my account disappear?

User talk:Madsalty —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Madsalty - There is not. You can simply stop using your account, and nothing further will happen to it. Please let us know if you have any more questions. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

JFK Space Cemter listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JFK Space Cemter. Since you had some involvement with the JFK Space Cemter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Harassment to my account

Hi Callanecc, I have a questions: who are the steps to made a complain about some users who believed that translation from featured articles from other language Wikipedia articles to English Wikipedia was always wrong?? during the following week my edits are reverted only because i didn't answeres in my talk page: the whole conversation was in my archive template and any of them even bothered to opened it and put the answers there. Thanks a lot for oyur help Aldebaran69 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Callanecc, before you step into this web of deceit, see
Aldebaran69 does not like having to abide by rulings for reliable sources and ignores what he does not like. Having been fed back his own actions, here, he comes to you trying to twist the facts about his own actions, even removing my comment from his "archives". Hardly the actions of someone that is here to build a community encyclopedia! Aldebaran69 has chosen NOT to explain his use of outdated, unreliable sources, therefore I will be removing said unreliable sources.
FYI, feel free to contact @PBS: --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see here and here. Where PBS posted his concerns regarding Aldebaran69's use of unreliable sources(geneall.net, genealogy.euweb.cz, et.al.).
  • "If you remove this posting without further comment then it is reasonable to assume that you will abide by that which you agreed in the recent ANI and that you do not object to anything I have written here." --PBS, 14:01, 16 October 2016. To which Aldebaran69 did not reply and simply deleted the post from his talk page.
Here is Aldebaran69's statement, "I didn't know that EVERY time that an user or administrator wrote to me I had the obligation to made a reply; if this is the case, from now I do it."
Guess not! --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

PC-protection of List of English terms of venery, by animal

Most reverts I have seen are unsourced additions. I see very little vandalism. Can you extend PC regardless? --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Callanecc.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Help me

Hi. Admin of wikipedia. Can u help me?. Would u erase my account from sockpuppet wikipedia/Muhd FUad. Rty77 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait. Did User:Rty77 just admit to being a sock? ;-) ... richi (hello) 00:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
wow... can you help how to do this... Wtc12 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Move

Dear plz move the page Rumana Islam Kanak Chapa to Kanak Chapa. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 15:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Callanecc. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

3 years ago today...

Wishing Callanecc/Archive 23 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
living people
... you were recipient
no. 685 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Dacey

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Dacey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

John Dacey

Congratulations! It's a...
Daceyville of a Good Article! Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Dacey

The article John Dacey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Dacey for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey: Goooooooooogle

Just wanted to let you know that Goooooooooogle was recreated by the same editor. I noticed that you had deleted it twice, so I figured you'd be privy of the situation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Happy holidays!

Hi Callanecc. Congrats on making it to the Arbitration Committee—I hadn't noticed that you had been elected! I saw your notification about the ARBCOM proposed case and will comment there probably later today. I hope that you're having an enjoyable holiday season! Best wishes.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc. I hope to not be a disturbance, but I was wondering if the Committee was aware of the continuous baiting and goading from the other party to Kareldorado and myself? That statement on "favoritism" was most unnecessary, just as the unfounded accusation of racism, the mockery of my friendship with Erebedhel, the allegation that I am disrespecting the "rule of 500 words", and the persistent interrogations he makes to Kareldorado and me ([3], [4], [5], [6]). I assume that the Committee is aware, but it's just that the Committee's silence is worrisome to me and I'd like to be affirmed of this rather than just assume it. Thanks in advance, and happy 2017!--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi MarshalN20, I'm just about to inactive for a bit so won't be involved with the request/case any further but I've asked another arb to take a look at your message here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Callanecc! Happy New Year! Stay safe. 🙂--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 08:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@MarshalN20: These comments are all on the case request page, so I'm confident all of the arbs who have been active in commenting on this case request are aware. For what it's worth, it's acknowledged in the guide to arbitration that disruption, etc. during the case itself can be considered when deciding on remedies. I also see that Amortias and DeltaQuad have explained the word limit thing at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#500_word_limit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Thanks again! I also appreciate the link to the arbitration guide. This resolves my concern. Happy 2017! Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 02:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Callanecc!

Happy New Year!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Callanecc/Template/WMF agreement

Hi. I made a small grammar fix to User:Callanecc/Template/WMF agreement — I changed "is signed" to "has signed". I would have notified you first so that you could make the change yourself, but since you say you "will have significantly reduced activity during January", I went ahead and did it myself. Please feel free, of course, to undo my change if you disagree with it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you!

Avid Radio Listener (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:SPI cases and IPs

Thank you for your kind message. The {{edit semi-protected}} keeps the SPI pages being listed here. So, I removed the template as the article was not semi-/protected. When my edit was undone twice and notified that template is required for SPI mainspace by the IP. WP:AFG, I reached out to User:Vanjagenije about the confusion and Vanjagenije patiently explained the procedure at the user's own talkpage. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my article about Andrew Taee.

My page was put up for deletion because it did not demonstrate a person of significance. I later contested the deletion on the grounds that this individual was a person of significance due to his high profile career, political connections and charity work. Unfortunately, it wasn't reviewed fast enough.

Nevertheless, my draft have previously been rejected for multiple reasons such as: - Lack of references - citations e.t.c. I corrected my article to meet all the requirements, therefore I don't understand why it was put up for deletion. Could you please advise how to go forward as I am very keen to get this article live.

Thank you

(Dialbox2016 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dialbox2016: There are a number of things which need to be established before an article can be published, two of those are having reliable, independent sources (one the most important to ensure that it isn't immediately deleted) and another is to demonstrate that the subject of the article is notable in accordance with certain criteria. What you need to do is demonstrate that he meets the notability criteria for people with reference to reliable, independent sources. If you can do that I'd be happy to restore the article for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your response. I have amended the article to include more substantive references, using a number of high profile publications in the UK. I also hope the article demonstrates the individuals high-profile career, charity work and partnerships with other high profile individuals who already have pages on wiki.

Dialbox2016 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Callanecc: this article was recreated by a user User:Bolton 28 that was created just after the last message by the above user. I did a bit of pruning to take out the non encyclopedic material. The above user has now tagged it as being his AFC and has taken over the editing from Bolton 28. this may be a case sockpuppetry to get round an AFC submission that is taking too long for them. Domdeparis (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dialbox2016 and Bolton 28:, I see that you're now working on it at Draft:Andrew Taee which is probably the best option. Please have a read of our policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to ensure that you are complying with that. Basically Wikipedia users are generally only allowed to have one account. If they have a legitimate reason to have more accounts, they need to disclosed on the userpage of both accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Callanecc: the article has been recreated by Dialbox2016 here Andrew Taee and the draft article still exists Draft:Andrew Taee and has not been submitted. A second submission Draft:Andrew Taee (2) was declined once on the 21 February afeter the above exchange by @SwisterTwister: and yesterday as being a duplicate. From what I can see the 3 articles are identical. I wonder if this is an article that should be salted? Domdeparis (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I have just undone a removal of sourced negative information by Dial2016. I think that this COI editor is on a mission for the boss of Dial Partners. Domdeparis (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I passed that edit by an arbitrator (Amanda, if I recall correctly), who had agreed at the time that it fixed a clear grammatical error (mixing a list of plurals with a singular) and didn't need further discussion. I didn't believe full committee attention was needed for a typo. Apologies for any inconvenience. ~ Rob13Talk 05:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Rob, I misread the sentence myself (I was looking at the 'is' which follows it). I meant that a full change to the sentence, to make it all plural or all singular has the potential to change the meaning, so that would need to the Committee's okay. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

General sanctions

Hi Callanecc. Do you know why we still have to manually log general sanctions notifications (e.g., Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) when discretionary sanctions notifications are logged automatically? --NeilN talk to me 06:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neil, there isn't a standard notification template for general sanctions and an edit filter hasn't been created. In theory it would be super easy to create an edit filter if it was only supposed to work with the SCW/ISIL sanctions, so that it could be automatically logged, if there was community consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Looking over the number of logged notifications for the past couple years, it's probably not worth the effort right now to create an edit filter for each general sanction message still used today. --NeilN talk to me 14:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion for central arbitration enforcement log

Regarding this edit: as the second sentence declares that a centralised log is created, it's a bit confusing at first to read, as it sounds like something that is being done on an ongoing basis. Perhaps you could consider rewording the text? I would appreciate it. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much! isaacl (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Fullurl

Greetings, does {{Fullurl}} really need full protection as opposed to semi or template protection? None of the pages it's used in are that high risk (or used in the interface) and it has only 250 transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • When you edit with the visual editor, you can see a visual diff as well as a wikitext diff when you review your changes. [7]

Problems

  • Special:AllPages was disabled for two days due to some performance issues. It is back, but the filter for redirects is gone as the cause of the performance problem. It still needs to be fixed. [8][9]

Changes this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The general 1RR restriction in ARBPIA

User:Callanecc, it has been pointed out to me the New Guidelines (in the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page). The key part is the sentence underlined in black. Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking."Davidbena (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Clean Start

Dear Callanecc,

My username's Cyrissa and I haven't been active in sometime. I believe it's better to start afresh than to continue using this. This is just for your information so I don't get sanctioned or anything. My new account is called Arliqua.

Thank you in advance for your acknowledgement.

Cyrissa (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arliqua (talk · contribs) clean starts are for editors who create a new account and don't disclose the link between their new and old accounts. In your case, as you've just done that, I suggest that you put a note on your new userspage acknowledging the connection such as with Template:User alternative account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Stairs (disambiguation)

How is it unexplained? The edit summary clearly states what happened -- "mergeto Stair (disambiguation)" -- Note: plural/singular. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed the plural/singular. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

103.251.65.35

here is that "blm" vandal again 73.93.155.38 (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like we've got them now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can add ?safemode=1 to the end of the URL on Wikimedia wikis to disable your personal CSS and JavaScript. Example: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Literature?safemode=1. This means you can test if a problem is because of your user scripts or gadgets without uninstalling them. [10]
  • You can now see a list of all autoblocks on Special:AutoblockList. [11]
  • The Wikiversity and Wikinews logos are now shown directly from the configuration and not from [[File:Wiki.png]]. If you want to change logo or have an anniversary logo, see how to request a configuration change. This is how it already works for other projects. They can request logo changes the same way. [12]

Problems

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. You can read more about this. This will also happen on 3 May.

Changes this week

  • There is no new Mediawiki version this week. This is because of the data centre test.

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 18 April at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • stats.wikimedia.org will be replaced. You can see the new prototype. You can leave feedback on this change.
  • Page Previews will be turned on for logged-out users on a large number of wikis in May. It could be postponed and happen later. Page Previews shows readers a short part of a linked article when they rest their mouse pointer on the link. This is to help them understand what it is about without leaving the article they are reading. Page Previews used to be called Hovercards. Users who have tested the feature can give feedback. [13]
  • From next week, user scripts using very old deprecated wikibits functions will show errors. These functions have not worked since 2013. You should fix or disable broken scripts. You can see examples of how to upgrade scripts. [14][15]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

List of AC/DC band members

List of AC/DC band members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) It has been between 1975 and 1977 since at least December 2015. The anon changed it to between 1974 and 1977 w/o explanation. Not sure what the actual dates are and really don't care. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-04

Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

The fourth fiscal quarter began the first of this month, and Collaboration Team has begun work on our new quarterly goals. In the coming months, we'll be working to release the New Filters for Edit Review beta on all wikis and then to improve the beta as much as possible based on user feedback. On that score, we're planning a round of user interviews on the new tools in May to get detailed information about usability and usefulness. If you've tried the new features and have thoughts, please share them with us in any language.

Our other focus right now is to look at what changes will be needed to spread the new filtering interface to other review pages, especially Watchlist. We're also exploring how to incorporate the tools we didn't include in the new interface in this round, like the Tag Filters, time-frame selector and Namespace filter.

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

  • New Filters for Edit review are now available on Polish, Portuguese, Persian, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as a Beta feature. French Wikipedia and Mediawikiwiki have the filters as a Beta feature too, but without the quality and intent filters. [16]
  • Special:RecentChangesLinked now displays a message when no results are found for a given combination of filters. [17]

Problems

  • Polish Wikipedia is experiencing an issue with predictions (quality and intent filters using ORES). The different predictions are in conflict. An edit can be considered as "good" and "bad" at the same time, and the filter levels are somewhat redundant. We have formulated a plan to address this and are working on a fix, which is deployed progressively on Polish Wikipedia. [18]
  • The issue on Polish Wikipedia is shared by a few other wikis: Dutch, Czech and Hebrew, and Wikidata. The deployment for those wikis has been postponed to Tuesday, May 9. Wikis without this predictions problem have been deployed or will be deployed with no change on the schedule. [19]
  • Interestingly, the "problem" with those wikis is that they perform better than we anticipated. Once the fix is in place, the tools will work with particular simplicity on these wikis.

Future changes

  • English Wikipedia and all wikis without ORES prediction services will get the New Filters for Edit review on Monday, April 24. [20]
  • All remaining wikis will get the New Filters for Edit review on Tuesday, May 9. [21]
  • Wikidata edits will be added as a type of change on New Filters for Edit review. [22]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

  • Notifications badges were overlapping other tabs on Internet Explorer 11 and Firefox 3.6, using MonoBook skin. This is now fixed. [23]

Flow [More information • Help pages]

  • Flow is now available as a Beta feature on French Wikiversity. [24]
  • All Flow documentation is now available on one page gathering all information, to help users to search for an information.
  • Flow's AbuseFilter integration now allows blocking a particular user from participating on a talk page, or any topic within it. [25]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Xtremedood logging out to violate topic ban?

Since you reverted the IP on List of converts to Christianity from Islam, I thought to ask you, after asking Bbb23.

User:Xtremedood was indefinitely topic 9 December 2016 from, "Religion, broadly construed; India and Pakistan, broadly construed".[26]

I noticed List of converts to Christianity from Islam that IP 156.223.200.214has done mass deletion of information;

  • 09:51, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-6,058)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎M) (Tag: section blanking)
  • 09:50, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-2,318)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎D) (Tag: section blanking)
  • 09:50, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-5,954)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎C) (Tag: section blanking)
  • 09:50, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-7,071)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎B) (Tag: section blanking)
  • 09:49, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-8,814)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎A) (Tags: section blanking, blanking)

Whereas 156.223.49.53 uses similar wording and nominated the article for deletion;

  • 15:58, 17 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (This list may be inaccurate and has questionable references. It contains a lot of conjectures, bias, and has discriminatory references.)
  • 15:57, 17 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (This list may be inaccurate and has questionable references. It contains a lot of conjectures, bias, and has discriminatory references.)
  • 15:54, 17 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+60)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (This list may be inaccurate and has questionable references. It contains a lot of conjectures, bias, and has discriminatory references.)

IP 156.223.49.53 nominated List of converts to Christianity from Islam for deletion.[27] Indicating this is not some new user.

Oddly enough, Xtremedood also has done mass deletion of information from this same article:

  • 06:39, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,537) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (Undid revision 746571818 by Jobas (talk) sources do not indicate that.)
  • 06:28, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,537) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (Undid revision 746571428 by Jobas (talk) no you did not)
  • 06:27, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,752) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (sources do not indicate a conversion from Islam or weak source ie "blogspot")
  • 06:21, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,387) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (sources do not indicate a conversion from Islam)
  • 06:12, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-6,118) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (sources do not indicate a conversion from Islam)

AND, Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion as well. Probably not a coincidence.

I was curious if you thought the edits of the IPs would be considered duck, and that the IPs are actually Xtremedood violating their topic ban by editing logged out. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Callanecc and Kansas Bear. I happened to see this request. The IP from 156.223.* is edit warring as well as IP-hopping, so I've gone ahead with one year of semiprotection at List of converts to Christianity from Islam. Whether these Cairo IPs belong to Xtremedood is a hard question which we don't necessarily have to answer here. (I thought some of Xtremedood's IPs were from Canada). User:Xtremedood has been active in the past in removing some entries from this list that claim to show a conversion to Christianity. The IP has done the same, though not the identical entries so far as I have noticed. Some of the IPs have removed so much material that their actions can be considered vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I appeal my ban

It's atrocious. RaRaRasputin (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your appeal is declined for two reasons: the first is that in the notice I gave you I said that I wouldn't consider an appeal for 3 months, the second is that even if I did consider your appeal you have haven't shown that the ban is no longer necessary, that is you haven't show that you:
  • understand what you have been banned for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what I have been banned for because you haven't told me. Perhaps we can straighten this out first? RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
While waiting for the accusations, I thought I would demonstrate my intention to make useful contributions in a completely unrelated field by solving the murder of Grigori Rasputin on Wikipedia tonight for you. I hope this helps. [28] :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unban appeal information. NeilN talk to me 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Callanecc, thank you for granting me filemover rights. I promise to be scrupulous with my moves. Have a nice weekend. Hoverfish Talk 10:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions.
Message added 10:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pending changes right removal

Is there somewhere that I can report users for using their pending changes review rights incorrectly, and request the removal of their right? 124.106.141.235 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to report that. I'd also warn you, though, that any further edits to Barbie Forteza are likely to get you blocked for edit warring. Rather than reporting them, your best option is to try to talk to to the editors who are reverting you on the article's talk page, have a look at WP:DR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

that's why I haven't edited the article again. I dont want to take a content dispute to ANI, that would waste the time of a lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Grazie mille

Thank you very much for granting me the page mover rights. Promise to use it for the good. God bless you.CrossTemple Jay 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologize

Hello Callanecc, I have just seen your message regarding my latest edit. I am in no way trying to vandalize this page, only trying to improve it as I live in this town. I am sorry for any confusion, still learning my way around :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReggaeMan567 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Can i become a pending change reviewer

I am active 7 months old and not much edit i only create pages all of them reviewed. Adolf 16:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adolf keemstar (talk • contribs)

Hi Adolf, you'll need a bit more experience before you begin applying for extra permissions, I'd suggest at least 3 months of consistent editing where you show you're understanding of policies by contributing to articles and working with other editors. Also make sure you have a look at WP:SIG#CustomSig as your signature (when you put in four ~~~~ at the end of a post) must include a link to your userpage or contributions log. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

IP block request on AIV

Hey there, apparently the cleanup bot at AIV is presistent in removing my finished nomination despite me having posed a questions. Hence, I'm handing this to you here. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 08:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Original conversation:
Declined. Range is too large to block, but I've semi-protected the pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Callanecc: I see, bummer. But could you, even if it may not presist for long, block this IP (and the user's previous ones, as documented in the given link above)? Lordtobi (✉) 08:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It removed it as I blocked that IP. Given how often they change IPs blocking previously used ones probably won't do anything to help. Let's see if semi-protection does the trick. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Another primary target of this user was [and will likely again be] Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle (see here/here), and a minor target was Pingu in this edit. I think the prior page should definetly be protected and could you proceed to do so? And what do you think about the latter? Lordtobi (✉) 09:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Both semi-protected for a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again! If this user comes back, can I just turn your way (for IP block and page protection)? Lordtobi (✉) 09:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah no worries, although WP:RFPP and/or WP:AIV might get faster responses. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I gotcha, Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 09:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Kangchenjunga and Madhesh

Thanks for protecting Kangchenjunga!!! Please also consider to protect Madhesh. The same user keeps deleting and changing referenced content also in this article since y'day, apparently aided by 2 new users, viz AkashYdv and ‎BishalJha. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for your prompt action!! BhagyaMani (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Notification

Hi there CALLANECC, from Portugal,

thank you very much for finding me fit to be awarded this editing feature (please see here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Quite_A_Character#Pending_changes_reviewer_granted), will use it wisely. However, i am not very sure of what is being asked of me here (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User%3AQuite_A_Character), can you please help out so that i can duly accommodate?

Thanks again, happy wiki-one! --Quite A Character (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

On your userpage, could you please include a note which links to your previous accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing! Not hoping that the display will be anything less than horrible (I do not know how to use a template to save my life, maybe you can lend a hand afterwards), but i'll give it a go. --Quite A Character (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page for Brenda J. Sell

I placed the information that was given to me BY the person of interest. Can this page, which has undergone corrections from the initial sources be reinstated so that I can get the corrected information back again?

I am very disappointed in this creation process. For all the false, and silly articles, I am having quite a time creating a page about a real person with real claims to fame, and once documented, it gets removed. This process makes no sense, considering once it gets approved, someone could change information and make it false, or even nonsensical. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Mastercourington (UTC)

Friend

Friend of Darouet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.90.43 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Winged Blades Godric 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I didn't receive the email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, it must have got lost somewhere in the clouds. Anyway, I have re-send it.Winged Blades Godric 08:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the page mover rights. Sagecandor (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, thanks much for working on the "checked" category of cases. Appreciated. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The CU declined queue is my next task (though it would be easier without my script issue). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for closing Siddheart's SPI. But I want to check if you had read my last messages on the SPI.[30] I believe that they need to be addressed because I am finding a new sock account that shares good amount of similarities with these both sockmasters (Anatha Gulati and ProudIndian007), and especially after knowing that the last blocked sockpuppet (Drivarum) was first blocked as sock of Anatha Gulati and then blocked as sock of ProudIndian007[31] shows that there is clear connection. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

SPI closure

Hi Callanecc. I just wanted to ascertain whether this SPI closure of yours took into account the behavioral evidence in this case, given that this evidence was supplied after Bbb23 had posted CU results. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at the behaviour and made the block as a suspected sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
While you're here, I'd recommend that blocks such as the one of User:Drivarum are probably better referred to the functionaries or ArbCom per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh, was unaware of that. I guess I didn't think too hard about it, because it wasn't particularly personal/confidential information; it just came to me off-wiki. Would you still recommend I forward the information? You're an arb; can I just send it to you? Thanks for taking care of the SPI. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it this time (probably best to ArbCom-l or Functionaries-en so there's a record of it). I also left a message on that DYK nomination, sorry I hadn't seen that before. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

GH and TRM block

I noticed your block on George Ho and The Rambling Man. Just so I understand properly because I am certainly confused about this block. Since you used IBAN as a reason that's where my troubles lay. In their IBAN it states that they are both indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). Checking the usual banning exceptions it reads that "the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." They cannot:

  • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  • reply to each other in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
  • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

In reading over your listed posts it looks more like they simply are in the same discussion. And certainly I see editors !vote in RFC's started by IBAN'd editors, it would be ridiculous to block that. I have effectively IBAN'd myself from one or two true horrors on wikipedia... acting as if they are never there in a discussion. But if they start an RFC on an article that I think may ruin the article I will certainly !vote. I'll just ignore them completely. I don't see where the Interaction ban section dis-allows that at all... at least not under "ordinary exceptions" and I've seen other editors allowed to !vote who have interaction bans against them. So I'm a bit confused. Maybe they undid each others edits and I missed that? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click), while I agree (hypothetically at the moment) that both commenting the same RfC wouldn't be a breach of an IBAN I would say that !voting on an RfC started by the other editor is a violation of the IBAN as that's a reference (and a comment) on the positions and comments of the other editor. Both !voting in the same RfC is less of an issue I'd suggest. Also picking up a point made by the other editor in one part of a discussion and then proposing it later on would also be a breach of an IBAN. So I would content that the example you provided if they start an RFC on an article that I think may ruin the article I will certainly !vote would be a violation of an IBAN as you are at least indirectly commenting on them and (possibly also because you are replying to them). Likewise, when one editor is already involved (especially heavily involved) in an discussion/article, the other then becoming involved can create problems, as it has in this instance. Hope that answers your question/s?Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not see the "picking up a point" and "proposing it later." I find that a wee bit of a stretch. As for !voting on the other's RFC, I don't see any violation there and to say that is implied in the IBAN under "ordinary exception" is not fair at all imho. I've seen a lot in my 11 years of editing here and I think these blocks were a bit hasty when I look at the terms of the IBAN. You're the administrator (not a position here I would ever want) and you'll do as you see fit, but it looks like this is very slim on both. I see below you mention TRM directly commented and replied to GH... I'll take your word for that. But stopping someone !voting has not been the usual interpretation of IBAN. Even if you act as if the other person doesn't exist you would see the RFC and other's !votes and be allowed to comment. If this situation called for a "hair-trigger" response on either of them I would have thought that would have been squarely and firmly spelled out in the arbitration case against them. Anyway, no response needed from you as I've said my piece and will move on to my usual editing, but thanks for the initial response and for listening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries, happy to discuss reasons behind my admin actions (regarding TRM directly commenting on GH, it's right at the bottom of the talk page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Callanecc, please correct me if I am incorrect, but I am seeing the sequence of edits as follows. TRM and GH have both been active on that page for a while. In recent discussions, TRM appears to have opined before GH has; in particular, with respect to the discussion about the cholera outbreak in Yemen. GH then proceeded to open an RFC on the topic. If opening and/or participating in this RFC was a violation of the IBAN, then the only way for TRM to continue to participate in a discussion in which he was already involved was to report GH, wait for GH to be blocked, and hope that somebody else would remove the RFC/start an identical one that would allow TRM to express his opinion. Instead, TRM chose to just express his opinion; which is the more directly helpful response. Even if this is a violation of the letter of the law, surely IAR would indicate in this case that no action be taken, at least against TRM? Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. Yes he should have disengaged, reported the violation of IBAN to AE/uninvolved admin and waited, he could also have asked at AE for permission to be involved in the RfC. This is the advice we give to editors involved in other conflicts, such as edit wars where page protection or blocks are needed (report, disengage and wait). While this isn't always what our involvement in disputes pushes us towards, it was the purpose of an IBAN (to make the two editors involved disengage from each other), that obviously hasn't happened here and unfortunately this is the result. I'd also point out that TRM's reply in the Arbitrary break 3 section is also a violation of the IBAN. Had TRM's final sentence alone been there it would have been covered under the usual exemptions, however he (as well as what I referred to above) made a direct comment on and reply to GH. I'd also note that the evidence of TRM breaching the IBAN is much stronger/clearer/repetitive than it is for GH; one of the reasons the the block (and same block length) GH as well is that he involved himself in a discussion/article with which TRM was already involved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Balloon boy hoax

HI Callanecc. You protected Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as edit-warring/content dispute. I don't think this is warranted. If you look at the talkpage of the article, as well as the discussion at WP:ORN, this dispute is about including a junk source from youtube, alleging malfeasance by the Larimer County Sheriff's office and the prosecution. This is the edit by the new, almost SPA account, inserting the junk video into the article.The video is by some guy calling himself "Internet Historian" and he appears in the video hiding his face with a paper mask superimposed digitally. If you think this a reliable source, please tell me so that I can unwatch the article and leave the POV-pushers have their way. The article had to be semi-protected, just before you protected it, due to heavy edit-warring by IPs trying to add the same youtube source in the past. Please see the protecting admin's comments at the time. These are serious BLP violations using a junk source. Characteristically, experienced editors who have commented have supported my position. Please see reply by ApLundell, latest reply by ApLundell and reply by Pinkbeast. In addition, the new accounts have flooded the talkpage of the article and they will not take no for an answer. Dr. K. 18:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K., with all due respect, once again you act in bad faith by informing other users such as administrators, of the situation through a false lens. You have stated that the dispute is about users attempting to convey that the allegations made by Heene, the main subject of the article in question, are true/false. However, the dispute is regarding the significance of Heene (not the Internet Historian) making said allegations. All I have proposed, through long and detailed discussion at the tlak page, is that the existence of this video and the allegations that HEENE (not Internet Historian) made about these agencies be mentioned in the article, as it is of significance to the article. You focus on the author of another video, internet historian, in which they present their personal opinion on the subject of the article. This is not being proposed to be added to the page, as it is opinionated and irrelevant to the article. However, you continue to ignore the fact that Richard Heene, the central subject of the article, filmed himself making allegations of foul play in a legal case, and then released that video in the public, furthermore in the video, he claimed to be reopening a legal case with the agencies. You have personally decided that the video cannot be included because of your personal vendetta against the channel the video is published on. You also fail to mention other users that have made similar arguments and expressed support for including the information in the video. You also fail to mention the fact that the most recent edit was a product of proposed compromise and was added with a neutral point of view and inclusion of another proposed source and wording discussed in the talk page. Again, I invite the admin to review the discussion which I have made a strong good faith effort to participate in and focus on the significance of the information rather than accuse others of wrongdoing, as you have done in calling others POV pushers, sockpuppets, and accusing of edit-warring. They may decide as they see fit taking into account all the discussion that has taken place. However, I would respectfully ask that when you seek outside counsel regarding this issue, as it is appropriate at this point, that you be impartial and act in good faith by explaining the entirety of the situation, not solely your personal viewpoint. Bekeke1 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Callanecc. You can now see for yourself the MO and PAs of these SPAs pushing that junk video in that hoax article. Dr. K. 19:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dr.K.: I'm not seeing personal attacks in Bekeke1's comment above that you seem to be referring to. Perhaps they drifted away from only writing clearly about content, but I'd contend that you did that yourself too. I'd ask that you lay off the talk page warnings, as you've already said that sort of response to Bekeke1 isn't making a difference, so deescalate and I'd suggest stop templating them.
@Bekeke1: You've been told a couple times that for something to be added to Wikipedia it needs to be covered in reliable sources and it seems that you aren't taking heed, so I'm going to try one last time. While I can't see a problem with adding this article to the article (I haven't looked in detail at the background, so this is just prima facie), the YouTube clip is not a reliable source and has not been covered in other reliable sources to indicate that is authentic and noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. If you continue to edit war and fail to drop the stick it is likely you will be blocked. However, I don't see a reason not to add a sentence along the lines of what's said in that Today article (noting that it is two years ago so you would need to convince people that it's worth adding. Dr.K., your thoughts on that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Callanecc, the user told me: Dr.K., with all due respect, once again you act in bad faith by informing other users such as administrators,... and I gave him a level 2 warning for not assuming good faith, and another for the associated PA in that same statement. I don't see how this is excessive. I also said: You can now see for yourself the MO and PAs of these SPAs pushing that junk video in that hoax article. I meant the wall of text and PA by Bekeke on this page, his/her walls of text on the article talkpage, as well as the PAs and walls of text of the other accounts, such as this PA by Anon99004, another PA by Anon99004, this wall of text by Anon99004, and this PA by Wolven1, just to mention a few. So, I hope now you realise the full extent of this disruption by these new accounts. Also, you don't have to suggest to me to stop templating this user, since I wasn't planning to. In fact, in my first response to him/her I went out of my way to be friendly to them. Then s/he started the walls of text, and the edit-warring in defence of that junk video, and continued with accusations of bad faith on your talkpage, just because I contacted you about the protection level of the article. That was completely unwarranted, and my response to all this disruption was actually mild. In any case, I fully agree with your edit proposal. I have no objection about adding the edit based on the Today source. Actually, I had such an edit prepared but I got an edit-conflict with the rapid reversions of the other editor. Dr. K. 03:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your help over at the Saraswati Supercluster wiki

An unregistered user is constantly making edits despite repeated warnings and heeds to look up the discussion over at the topics talk page first. It's gone past beyond the 5th warning now. Requesting admin attention towards the issue.

Thank you. ShotgunMavericks (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for 24 hours, hopefully that calms it down a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Arijit Singh

Hello. You might need to reprotect Arijit Singh with full again. One of the editors has requested protection, followed by both of them reporting eachother to WP:AIV. I was about to reprotect but I thought I'd contact you first. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks dear for discussing the topic on protecting admins page. But as I contribute through Android device it takes some time to load pages. I don't want to fall in any dispute because I am here to contribute, as this great encyclopedia was proved to be blessing to me since childhood. I have patrolled some 300 new pages but never fall in dispute with those editors. But the editor Umair Aj who is continuously vandalising Arijit Singh's page is quite strange. He is deleting references by justifying it as vandal fighting. You can go through my editing history I often help out newcomers and contribute to this great encyclopedia as much as I can.

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 16:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please reprotect Arijit Singh page ?

Hello sorry to disturb you dear admin ! If you can remember few days back you protected Notable Indian singer Arijit Singh's page. However the protection expired couple of days back. In order to improve the articles references I added a well sourced archived citation by reliable news media Indian Express. However the editor Umair An seems to dislike the artist so much that they are deleting citations Here is the evidence and justifying it as vandal fighting ! Which is strange Though I restored the citations and discussed it at WP:ANEW where most admins agreed that adding references is not vandalism. But I believe the editor will again come back to delete contents and citations. Can you please do something dear admin. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like the article has already been fully protected. I'd warn you both though, if you don't use this time to discuss and then, when the protection is lifted, continue the dispute by editing the article, you will be blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Shinano River

On 23 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shinano River, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Shinano River is the longest river, and has the third largest drainage basin, in Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shinano River. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shinano River), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Reprotecting the page Arijit Singh

Hi there, This is to inform you to, that the protection of the page Arijit Singh is expired but the vandalism is going on by editor Umair Aj. The editor Umair was previously blocked for sockpuppeting, you can check their blocklog. Now They are deleting references and damaging formatting and removing attributed contents which are not peacocking. It seems they strong dislike the singer and are also deleting contents on the song's article sung by him placing tags and taking it into Afd's etc. Although the article Arijit Singh's formatting and structure has been damage due to vandalism by the editor but I do not intend to revert those back, as it will create editing conflicts. I am not here to fall in conflicts, I am here only to contribute as much as I can by reviewing new pages, adding new well sourced contents on existing pages, creating articles, Participating at Afd and other important stuffs. Currently I am also busy due to real life commitments. I hope you will counter vandalism as you have lot of more experience than me as you are a learnt administrator and have experience dealing with these. Take care have a love day Anoptimistix Let's Talk 04:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 04:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to discuss it on the article's talk page. The article seems to be compliant with policy at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Query

Three years ago you imposed this sanction on me, any chance of lifting it? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see at least year of active editing without incident (or at least of the types which lead to the block and ban) after your unblock before considering lifting it, and even then I'd likely recommend going through AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll wait till 29 November before appealing it, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc/Archive_23&oldid=1136202533"