User talk:Callanecc/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Callanecc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 32 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Unblock request response

Thanks for the email.

No. The IP block would not have expired by the time you responded, but it would not have mattered because it was a weekend and no one was in the office that needed to edit Wikipedia after the end of business on the day the request was made.

Yes, I was able to use my home account to make a request to the blocking admin who removed the block on the IP.

Glad it wasn't an emergency (can someone have an emergency because they can't edit Wikipedia?), and thanks for the help anyhow! Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus it would have needed me to be online when you replied to the email asking for more information. But glad it got sorted out anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Snakebite report at AN3

Hello Callanecc. You left open this case for comment by other admins: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:79.182.111.44, User:79.182.49.102 being reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: ). Since the 79.* IP-hopper has been reverting across snake articles and has made a number of copyright violations, I think it's within discretion (of AN3) to do semiprotection of the articles he has been editing. During the period that Black Mamba has been semiprotected, User:DendroNaja has been able to take the article to the GA level. That article was most recently semied by User:Mark Arsten but the log shows it has needed frequent protection over the last few years. In my opinion it's a valid use of semiprotection to enable good-faith editors to make article improvements. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a good reasoning to me. Feel free to semi protect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Europe sanctions

Hi Callanecc, I just received notice here and on my talk page of sanctions regarding editing on Eastern Europe. I'm wondering if this is because I sometimes edit on Eastern Europe generally, or because of specific edits I made, or discussions regarding them? All best, -Darouet (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It was editing the topic area generally. But it was editing Svoboda (political party) which popped your username to me. I clarified that the page is under discretionary sanctions on the talk page and notified the recent editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification)

Please bear in mind that NONE of the administrators supposedly applying discretion sanctions is above the WP rules or free of review. And the balder such admins are in their "discretions", the harder would they be hit by the community;) My 10+ years of Wikipedianship dictate me this knowledge.

Please note: This notice does not imply wrong doing, it is used in an advisory capacity only. Grateful you for your interest in Eastern Europe, Ukrained2012 (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Topic blocking for IRR violation

I will definitely be more careful to leave a full day (rather than 22 hours) between edits in the future.

I had believed that I had left a day between the edits, although I hadn't timed it carefully enough (hence why I state that I didn't notice an IRR violation above). But I will count the time more carefully in future.

As for the content of the edit. I would think it is uncontroversial (as per WP:V) that we should use the name in the article that the sources that we are citing use. Simply, the names used in the article should be the same as the names used in the sources. Avaya1 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Holyfield

I just wanted to let you know that I've reprotected this, but I think this could be a very viable candidate for unprotection in a few months to a year (I'm guessing something like 4-6 months). I think PC would have been successful now, but the timing couldn't have been worse: he said some dumb things on Big Brother in the past day or two, which pretty much doomed any chance of lowering the protection right now. Other than that, he has been out of the public eye for the most part and it has been protected for a very long time, so it was a sound idea. You may want to try it again a few months down the road, if you're still interested; if you don't, I probably will, if I remember. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Schock

Can you expand protection time? Looking at history log, there have been reverts, especially last year. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what happens when the protection expires. A week is generally long enough for a first protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is another revert. Upgrade? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, fully protected for 3 months per {{BLP Spec Admin}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please give & log ARBCC template to a user

Hi, Recently you templated me about ARBCC in case it is needed later, and we discussed on my talk page whether it is OK for me to do the same for others. Out of an abundance of procedural caution and with the same mind towards prevention rather than punishment, would you please consider also templating and logging with respect to cwmacdougall (talk · contribs)? As we discussed, simply editing a climate article or talk page is enough for the template even if you're Mother Theresa, but there is a larger basis for this request as should be evident by threads on his talk page, on my talk page, and at Talk:Global_warming#Why isn't this article marked as POV?. Thanks for your consideration. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bless you, my son/daughter as the case may be.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's only a notice that they exist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification for user Andrux

Hello Callanecc. Please, explain the reasons you've had to notify and place me on the editing restriction. Regards, --Andrux (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the notice I placed on your talk page ensures you are aware that discretionary sanctions apply to that topic area, they don't necessarily imply wrong-doing. I left the notice on your talk page after I blocked Shervinsky (talk · contribs) for edit warring on Little Russian identity. After blocking and topic banning Shervinsky I made sure that the other involved in the dispute were aware that these discretionary sanctions applied to the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Callanecc, I'm not sure if you're still watching the page, however User talk:Iambarky789 has posted a response to your unblock review questions. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Kava soft drink removal and protection

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kava

Hello, I have had an issue with removing dated material and updating current manufacturers information on Kava Soft Drinks User Alexbrn has deleted multiple entries without willingness to compromise on entry. I have tried multiple times to discuss with him the issue and stated no interest in escalating to a editting war http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Alexbrn

Information provided is verfiable, cited, and neutral - further if you look into the talk section of said page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Kava there is citations of users wanting more information on current manufacturers.

Finally, Alexbrn seems to have had multiple issues with edit warring in the past as you can see from his talk page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Alexbrn

I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter

2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413

You need to suggest what you want to be added and the reasons for that. But I'll say this "Kalm with Kava, A Relaxation and Kava Drink based out of San Jose, CA blends Vanuatu Kava with fruit juice purees to create their Kava Beverage" sound more like ad advertisement than encyclopedic content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated, I tried working with Alexbrn on the context of what he would like added to the article as he seems very invested on the subject. I myself am a proponent of Kava and I am trying to add neutral and up-to-date information on the article. As stated, in the Kava Talk forum users mentioned the lack of relevant information under the Soft Drink category. I would like to remove Mary Jane's Soda, as they are no longer in business unfortunately and add Kalm with Kava - one that is currently in business along with King Kava. I propose "Kalm with Kava, A Relaxation and Kava Drink based out of San Jose, CA blends Vanuatu Kava with fruit juice purees. King Kava out of Long island City, NY concocts a Kava extracted Tea Beverage" Please advise on if this is not encyclopedic enough. 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's advertising, but that doesn't change the fact that you need to have editors supporting your point of view on the talk page of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article - users are supporting 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

They said more information would be helpful, not that your advertising should be added. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, I am not trying to do any advertising. I believe the way it stands now is slanted toward one company and adding two other companies to reference only adds to the objectiveness of the article. Please advise 2600:100E:B115:8FF0:1DBA:D59:791C:6CBC (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Callanecc is on vacation the rest of January it looks like, but if all you are really trying to add is the two manufacturers, then it is straightforward. First, I recommend you skim WP:TONE, Callanecc is correct that you are advertising/promoting/advocating the stuff, you need to simply describe things, just the facts. See WP:EDITORIALIZING. Here is an off-the-cuff rewrite to get you started, feel free to ask for additional help toning it down at WP:TEAHOUSE, if you (or somebody at the talkpage) doesn't like my version.

Products and Manufacturers

* Mary Jane's Soda (historical—stopped manufacturing kava-based products in YYYY).

* Kalm with Kava (San Jose, California), blends pureed fruit juice with kava from Vanuatu. ^[ref?]

* King Kava (Long Island City, New York), blends tea with kava-extract. ^[ref?]

* Zen'd (city, state), vanilla chai flavor with kava kava.^[ref?]

You should definitely break this into ~~three~~ maybe four different edit-proposals on the article-talkpage, one edit-request for updated Mary (removal is unlikely because notability is not temporary... cf Roman Empire <grin> and other old news we keep around here for some odd reason), one edit-request for adding Kalm, one edit-request for adding King, plus one for Zen'd which I added. Last but by no means least, read WP:NOTEWORTHY. Longer explanation follows, with some sources to get you started, click the little 'show' button to see inside.

The manufacturer and/or product must have been mentioned WP:RS, which means in the press, or in academia.

So for instance, if an independent journalist at the San Jose Times (or whatever), backed up by the fact-checking and legal-policy-department of the professional editorial-board at the SJT, has mentioned the products/mfgs, then those things are now WP:NOTEWORTHY per WP:RS, and neutral prose can thus be added to the relevant article of wikipedia.

Same for teevee coverage. Same for magazine coverage, although trade-rags are not all the same (some are pure advertorials). Same for online newspapers and such. NOT press releases ("Takes Tasters By Surprise") stuff, whether republished or otherwise. Not paid adverts, not vanity press, etc. Not facebook/youtube/blogs/forums/homepages/stores/similar. Along the same lines, if scientist Foo published a paper mentioning the products/mfgs in journal Baz, which is put out by publisher Quux, then WP:NOTEWORTHY is achieved. You cannot use the manufacturer website, any fansites, open wikis (including wikipedia! :-) or similar self-published non-fact-checked non-peer-reviewed materials to back up the wikiNoteworthy status. 'Votes' on the talkpage are irrelevant, if you have no sources.

King Kava has some coverage that I found, a bit borderline but might be WP:RS, you can ask at WP:RSN if you are not sure: Jan'13 BevNet trademag (pg48print==pg76pdf),[1] Jul'13 New York Daily News article.[2][3] Also in bevnet was Zen'd, on the following page. Definitely not WP:RS is the vicedotcom thing. Didn't find anything for Kalm, so probably WP:NOTYET for that edit-request, unless WP:NOTEWORTHY sources can be found. By way of contrast, Mary has many years of coverage, with no hard digging required to WP:PROVEIT:

Dec'09,[4]
Mar'10,[5]
Feb'11,[6][7]
Jun'11,[8]
Aug'11,[9]
Aug'13,[10]
MMM'YY,[11]
MMM'YY,[www.wktv.com/news/top-stories/Anti-energy-drinks-raise-concerns.html]
WP:NEWSBLOG.[12][13][14]

That's prolly enough for a *dedicated* article about Mary Jane's Soda, just in the first few pages of search-results. You don't need that much to be WP:NOTEWORTHY, but you need to have *something* in the mainstream press or the mainstream academic/medical journals, which specifically mentions the product and/or manufacturer.

Hope this helps, try WP:TEAHOUSE for more advice (feel free to ask if they carry King Kava™ yet in their beverage selection), thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

user: Internuclear

Hi. Since you blocked this user, perhaps you also want to look at Internucleotide (talk · contribs), Internucleonic (talk · contribs) and Internucleon (talk · contribs); these accounts were all created within moments of each other. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User: ‎Moe123usajr

Hello. I saw that you had blocked User:‎Moe123usajr on 8 January, after I had reported him. However, we are still having a problem with him. He still wants to keep changing the year from 2006, to 2003 for Natalie Morales on the Today (U.S. TV program) article. I have posted on his talk page, and I have posted on TODAY's talk page. I even provided a link to Morales's biography on www.today.com. I just want to know, what should I do? I'm tired of dealing with it, and others just do the same as I do, revert it. I know not to revert it more than three times. As I do not know much about blocking users and that sort of thing, I am asking you. I hope you can help and look forward to what you have to say. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 22:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the socks and re-protected the target articles. The updated SPI can be found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoMontNW.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 22:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. If any of the socks slip through the protection/blocks, please feel free to ping me. And thank-you to Callanecc for allowing me to briefly hijack his talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't do that

Re [15]. WP:TPO (the written rule) notes that " It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." The unwritten rule is that, unless a typo affects the meaning of a contribution basic wiki courtesy is that we ignore it . I understand the principle of accurately quoting someone, but in the context of wiki talk pages someone, it's best to express the quote as it was meant -- no one who is not a dweeb is going to be upset that you "misquoted" someone. In any event, (sic)s draw attention to the unimportant misspelling and make it appear as if the sic-cer is trying to make the sic-ee look stupid. NE Ent 12:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

May I undo the disruptive edits on it?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

other nonsense

Thanks for the Russian American page action. The same nonsense is occurring on the Belarusian American page by an IP user who wants to be the sole decider of images to appear on the page. Hmains (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I could probably have semi protected, but there seems to be more of a long running issue there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have an IP editor (with a dozen or so IP addresses-but same person) who first wanted to put non-Americans on each page (insisting by his own research not the content of the WP articles that they were American or alternatively that you didn't have to be a citizen to be American) and now seems to want anyone except Jews on the pages (doesn't like them 'pushed' on him). Basically, he just wants whatever he wants, the excuses do not matter. As of right now, the articles reflect his last edits and not what they contained prior to this activity, including gaming the WP rules to his own benefit. Hmains (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that they are content disputes. If after the protections expire I'd have no issue blocking or semi protecting. But let's see how these relatively short full protections work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No way to block an IP editor using an ISP that changes IP addresses with every logon as this IP editor claims happens. Only way to fix is edit-only by auto-confirmed-editors on these articles--for a long time. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We can rangeblock, but it's way to big. So semi protections are the only way to do it. But we'll see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor may be perfectly happy with his last edits and so not edit, so it will be other editors who have to expose themselves to trouble by editing the articles to get them back to where they were prior to this outbreak of editing nonsense. Hmains (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, also, thank you for the page action on the Russian American article, it might give us some time to sort things out. I am trying to avoid getting involved in an ethnic feud edit war, but the infobox on that article has now essentially become an edit war between a single IP user (2.125.165.111, 2.222.87.118, 94.7.94.199, 90.214.121.50, 176.251.48.55, 90.200.195.80, 94.13.108.100, 90.200.193.100, 90.200.193.100, 90.222.33.115, 2.124.40.71, etc., who I think is also called user Sunderland_against_Di_Canio) on one side (removing Russian Jewish Americans from the infobox) and mostly users Mankiw2 and me on the other side (adding Russian Jewish Americans back in).

Seeing as how heated the discussion has been on the talk page (it's gotten to the point where the IP user is editing my talk page comments), I don't think this edit war will stop when page protection expires. I don't think fully protecting the page again would be fair or helpful (because the page will undoubtedly land on someone's desired version of the page). I do, however, think that semi-protecting it would be helpful, because it would make the IP user use his username to edit instead, which would be helpful in terms of WP:3RR and just to keep things straight in general. Thanks! ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please notice the repetitive activity of the same user at Belarusian American. Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please notice the repetitive nonsense revert activity of the same user at Belarusian American. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- And that this editor is incapable or unwilling to write anything without adding insults to other editors, including me. Enough. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned

Realize you won't be around until the 27th per your message above. But a warning you gave was mentioned here so I figured I should probably let you know. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

CVU

Hello I am Gfrsdgerr. I would like to start training for the CVU. If you could leave a message in my talk that would great. Thanks--Gfrsdgerr (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Gfrsdgerr

Thanks for your interest Gfrsdgerr, but I'm going to be busy at least a month so it's probably worth asking a different instructor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Callanecc and thanks for deletion of that template. Jaqeli (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email. Thanks. 'JianhuiMobile^talk 12:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

MMS

Hey Callanecc! May you enable WP:MMS so I could send WP:TAFI's update to the members. ///EuroCarGT 01:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Please be careful with it and let me know if/when you don't need it anymore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's weekly so, in case I'm taking a break or not active I'll definitely let you know. ///EuroCarGT 01:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI clerk

I've gone ahead and approved your request! I seem to have lost the official welcome template, so here's a few notes:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures has the basics about how SPI works. If you have any questions, feel free to drop by the channel on IRC.
User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js makes things a lot easier, and we encourage all CUs and clerks to use it so that things are standardized.
File:SPI chart.png may be helpful in determining whether to endorse cases. It is still in beta though, so be careful...

Thanks for helping, and welcome! --Rs chen 7754 06:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Block on NinaGreen

I think your re-block reasoning was erroneous as NinaGreen wasn't blocked at the time when the IP edited (and therefore it can't exactly be considered block evasion). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It was, thanks for the heads up. I was looking at one time in UTC and the other in local time which made it look like the edits occurred during the block. I've removed the blocks and the case page entry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pp-meta

Hi Callanecc. Did you know that {{pp-meta}} has more than 18,000 transclusions? That means that it's probably best to make edits in {{pp-meta/sandbox}} before updating the main template, hint hint. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Doing now. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus the vast vast majority of those are either the icon or the header template used in template documentation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, don't worry, it's not such a big deal. It's just that somewhere, a template kitten dies every time that you make an untested edit to a protected template. You wouldn't want to kill the template kitties, now, would you? No, I thought not. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor template kittens :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdtemp

"CU won't connect an account with an IP address. "

Maybe I misunderstand. Isn't the point of CU to look at the IP an account uses? And couldn't that make a connection between these two accounts? -- GreenC 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Checkuser won't publicly link an account with an IP address. Saying that User:Foo has been using IP address 123.456.789 is tantamount to revealing their real life identity (since it's at least theoretically possible to determine that information from an IP address) or at the very least their physical location. This is an extension of the harassment policy, which does not allow publicly identifying information to be posted on Wikipedia without the subject's consent. Whilst named accounts can therefore be linked by Checkuser investigation (which us mere mortals don't get to see), it's rare indeed for a Checkuser to comment on an named account's use of a specific IP. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So, if I use two accounts: one a named account the other an IP, I am secure in the knowledge that CU can't investigate me? -- GreenC 21:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Checkusers investigate IPs as part of any investigation and block or sanction accordingly if there is abuse of the policy regarding multiple accounts. What a checkuser will very rarely do is to explicitly link an IP to an account publicly (e.g. as part of an SPI), and only when there are extenuating reasons to do so, in order to comply with the Foundation's Privacy policy. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite a secure way to sock, no. I recall earlier this year a user was blocked for a couple weeks by a checkuser with the summary "{{checkuserblock-account}}: Editing while logged out in apparent attempt to avoid scrutiny". Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi! You kindly responded to my revision deletion requests at Animal magnetism and a couple of others. Thank you for that. However, I'm slightly anxious that the specific way the job was done may have inadvertently fallen foul of the guidelines for criterion RD1. It seems to me that the method of deleting and then selectively re-creating has the effect of removing attribution for intervening edits by non-infringing editors; what I'd expected to see was that the edits were greyed-out, but the edit history had been left intact. Please note that (a) I'm a total neophyte in this area and (b) I have no idea idea how admin tools work; so if I'm wrong please feel free to tell me so. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1 wording may have some bearing. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Calanecc. I'm not sure if there was actually an attribution issue, because it looks like the content had been rolled back, but I've restored the history of Animal magnetism and applied revision deletion instead. While we used to use "Selective deletion" routinely in copyright cleanup, that was deprecated when revision deletion came along. :) Unless the whole article has to go, all we need do now is hide the text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Only reason I used selective deletion is that there were a couple hundred revisions to be deleted and I thought it'd be much simpler to selectively delete then 'cross out' hundreds of revisions, the attribution issue didn't occur to me. But no worries, thanks for dropping me a message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My Apologies

My apologies for the frivolous Sock Puppet report. I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time, I truly am. It was not my intention. I seem to have misunderstood the process. If somebody would be so kind as to visit my talk page and suggest how I should best proceed about this IP editor, I would really appreciate it. Thank you all for your time, and again I apologize for the trouble. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

Glad to have you on the team :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We couldn't let SPI continue to be the Mark Arsten Show forever :P --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My Defence

Hi, Callanecc, I am preparing the defending arguements about the socpuppettry issue. Since there are lots of claimed proofs of sockpupettry, I am thinking to reply one by one about these. Though it would be best to reply all at once, there is a probability to be banned in vain while I preparing my defence. Am I allowed to present my proofs partly partly? Thanks.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note, requesting that any admins reviewing the case wait until you have made your defence. But it won't be held of indefinitely so please try to reply as soon as you can. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

edit war

Uhmmm, any particular reason why I got a note that I am "engaged in an edit war"? when my only contribution to the edit war, was reporting it and a single revert i.e. not in violation of WP:RR and since its was a major content removal, by a new user, who made 4 revert in half hour span it was suspect for vandalism. Isn't that exactly what we suppose todo when we see such removals popping in our watch list?!--PLNR (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably half and half on whether a warning was warranted. The reason it was the soft version is that it's pretty obvious that there is an edit war was going on, so the best cause of action would have been to report it (at WP:AN3 and maybe WP:RFPP) and then leave it unless there is a compelling reason to revert, such as there had been at least a bit of discussion on the talk page agreeing with your edit. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have given you the warning, but jumping onto the end of an edit war not long after the other two editors had stopped probably isn't the best idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I always thought that 18k of data removed, more than half of the article content, without any previous discussion(i know the page cluttering my watchlist from some time back), is a compelling reason to revert i.e. vandalism :/ to restore long standing info and report, which what I thought I did. I guess no good deed is goes unpunished ;) --PLNR (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus....

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Oncenawhile's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kilner jar page

Hi there,

I'm an employee at Rayware, who own the Kilner jar brand. I recently updated the page to provide more information but this information was then deleted by you. Could you tell me why this is? I originally created an account called TheRaywareGroup, not knowing that company names are inappropriate usernames and the account was subsequently blocked (also by you I think, could this have something to do with it?

I'm new to Wikipedia editing so just trying to get to grips with it!

Thanks,

Lydia — Preceding unsigned comment added by LydiaC1991 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! The content you added sound pretty promotional and all of the sources you used are primary sources which makes it difficult. If you want to keep it in the article you need to find some sources which aren't from the company especially for the paragraph which states "The Kilner brand name has since become synonymous with glass jars" as this is advertising pure and simple unless it's also stated in independent, third party sources. The last paragraph also needs to be sourced. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus it's a copyright violation which is a big nono on Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Humble request for explanation of recent edit warring judgement. re User:Eric Corbett

Hello,

I'm not a savvy Wikipedia user, which is probably the cause of my puzzlement in this case. I'm asking the following questions in the hope that I will end up with a better understanding of how to work with Wikipedia.

In the following case:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Eric_Corbett_reported_by_User:86.141.217.115_.28Result:_Stale.29

you concluded:

Stale Though both User:Eric Corbett and User:86.141.217.115 should remember seek dispute resolution and discuss rather than revert each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have two questions:

1) The problem arose last night. How can it be a "stale" matter?

2) The talk and edit summary pages shows that I repeatedly tried to initiate a discussion and User:Eric Corbett failed to engage. Bearing that in mind, could you explain why you suggested that we should remember to "discuss rather than revert"? - I clearly did so remember, and User:Eric Corbett chose not to engage in discussion when I urged him to.

Before replying, you might find it useful to read:

User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Thank you for your time.

86.141.217.115 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Okay. I'm sorry. I will try harder to watch out for pages I tag for speedy deletion. Thanks for letting me know. MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing Aaron Schock

With the article fully protected, I won't be able to neutralize the passage of his voting for the bill that prevents funding to married gay couples and then omit implications of his opposing gay marriage, which the source doesn't say. Also, the communication between me and administrators isn't that easy. I was requesting rewording, but I guess my language isn't that good for them. If you can't lower to PC2/semi, then how else can I reach out to administrators who can fully understand my requests? I wasn't trying to add his "opposition" to gay marriage; I was trying to remove it. --George Ho (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This full protection is slightly different in that it only affects anything to do with Schock being gay or his attitude to gay people. Anything related to those two needs consensus to be established. My suggestion is that you rewrite it, put your rewrite in a new section and ask for opinions on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done so recently, but I didn't put the template on top of section because... consensus would be needed. --George Ho (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, so once there is some agreement (or no comments in a week or two) put up the edit protected template and an admin can do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

inre Stay More: The World of Donald Harington

As the topic (under a malformed title) HAS been previous prodded for a speedy and discussed at AFD, and is different enough in form to not merit a G4 speedy, and because independent sources are available which could be used to address it being tagged for that lack, with respects I have declined the proposed deletion per instructions for doing so. However, I agree it might be returned to AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've always taken REPROD as being the same article rather than the title. If it isn't similar enough to warrant G4 then shouldn't it be able to be PRODed as a different article? I may be way off, but that always how I saw it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

After a prod is removed for cause, a re-prod is usually to be avoided. Yes, we've had contributors change the title of their articles in order to get around issues, and same exact content but with a different title becomes subject to speedy. But in building content, we recognize that same title with a different content avoids a speedy, just as different content with a "modified" title avoids a speedy. In prodding, we need to address the topic being discussed and consider its history and author, as it is by changing the content and form (significantly different) that they avoided a speedy. Authored by the same person this is an article on a the exact same film topic that was previously discussed at AFD. Being an article (under whatever name) as a previously-discussed topic and contributed (again) by the same author, we can recognize his attempts to expand on his topic and address the issue of a mal-formed title as brought up at the earlier AFD. So yes... it was a "new enough" article and you could propose it for deletion... but when that prod is removed it should not be re-prodded. The next step is WP:AFD where the subject can get attention of more eyes who can determine if the article be improved enough to meet notability guidelines. And under the proper title, sources are available that could improve it. We shall see. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Afkun SPI

Is there any reason we can't have a CU check here? That would settle what is getting to be a very unpleasant debate. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a CU request so we'll see if there enough to warrant a check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If this is a sock I'm very disappointed. If it is shown it isn't, given the posts to my talk page and others telling editors they can't participate in the discussion because they were canvassed (and I'm not convinced it was inappropriate canvassing), then I'll go to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I didn't have to go to ANI, the editor who started this SPI went to AN3 to complain about me and other editors and was given a one week block. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

John Johnstone Smith

You are way tolerant for this edit. Perhaps too tolerant. This is a clear case of block-evading sock puppetry. Why not just open a case? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not block evasion because the two month block had expired. If John puts a link to the previous account on his userpage then there is no violation of policy. But a new SPI has been opened so we'll see where that goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI: re-reporting Winterberg SPI

I don't know what the protocol is for re-reporting so I thought I'd drop you a note so you're aware of the re-report, in case you want to be the one re-examine the case. [16] Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

other account

Hi, i did not use multiple accounts, User:kendite was my original user account in both Arabic and English wiki. I merley changed my name in the arabic wiki project but did not create another account. for some reason, User:kendite remained active but i have not logged in using that account for over a year and i have never claimed to be a different user. all i did was changing my user name in arabic wiki project from Kendite to (يوسف حسين). i do not understand why you had to send me that warning. --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I warned you because there was a cross-over with your edits changing usernames and forgetting to log into the new account explains that. However you still need to state that Kendite is a previous account of yours as the other users asked you to, you can use Template:User previous account so do this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Good points, check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bladesmulti. Have a good one. Noteswork (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

SulabhENVIS

Beyond the SulabhENVIS and SulabhENVIS Centre (now both redirs to Sulabh International) and the userpage you deleted with the same material (technically it wasn't G5, though, as it was created before either account involved was blocked, but it had to be CSD'ed anyway as promo-in-userspace & copyvio, so it's hardly a big deal), there is also a tagged but not yet deleted Article for Creation with the exact same material at Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/SulabhENVIS, created by Special:Contributions/122.162.80.225 on the 24th and edited by Special:Contributions/122.162.12.71 on the 27th. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a G5, I blocked SulabhENVIS Centre at 10:00 and SulabhENVIS posted it at 21:04 so block evasion. I was actually intending to speedy it with all three criteria but hit the go button before I'd written the others in. AFC draft now deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that the 10:00 you blocked SulabhENVIS at is 10:00 UTC today, and it has yet to become 21:04 UTC today, and if I remember correctly from my glance at the userpage before you deleted it, it was created yesterday. Oh well, like I said, no big deal. Certainly not here to criticize you, just noticed that you're the admin who's been solving most of the Sulabh-related issues so I figured I'd point you to the AFC draft. Thanks for deleting that one and the others and for dealing with the little pesks.AddWittyNameHere (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry was supposed to be 10:00 (SulabhENVIS Centre block) and 10:04 (SulabhENVIS userpage creation), I forgot to change both to UTC time. Though I do realise I'm cheating since I can see the deleted revisions. No worries, and thanks for letting me know about the AFC draft, I did and would have continued to miss that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Explains that. You're most welcome, it was pure luck that I stumbled upon it. Must also ask you one thing... do you never get tired? Pretty much 95% of the admin-action that found its way to my watchlist the last few hours has had your username attached to it. Deleting those pages, blocking the two involved accounts, blocking Ongolemirror, blocked TheGTA5Group, protecting Bibras Natkho... you're one busy bee. Wonder if you're to your fellow admins what Cluebot NG is to us vandalfighters... the one that keeps beating them to the action. (In case not clear, that rambling over there is supposed to mean something along the lines of "Great job!") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I do, but I'm doing other stuff on the computer. I'm just dealing with stuff as it comes up on the watchlist, and working through the noticeboards every few hours. It wasn't long ago that I was fighting off ClueBot for the revert (though it was generally other people working Huggle who were beating me to it). Thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI helper script

Hi Callanecc. Noticed you helping out as an SPI clerk recently (how many hats can you wear?) - I don't know whether you've got it installed already, but User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js is a jolly handy tool for clerks; you might want to give it a whirl. All the best, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll see how many hats fit on, though I have slowly been pulling back from a couple (OTRS & ACC). I sure do, thank you for the suggestion. I've been slowly easing into using it, and learning what different things do which is the hard bit for all new tools. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AIV...

Regarding this, I have asked an admin to look into the possibility of a topic ban against that IP-hopping troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He re-posted under that same IP, recently enough that maybe someone will block him this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you give me some more information, I can also (or help) look into further sanctions. But we need more information to be able to block. Maybe if you create or link to an SPI or a page in LTA or in your userspace which has some details on them so we know what's going on when we come across the AIV report. Or you could take it to ANI and see if the community will sanction and provide some admin guidance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Why you did 3 blocking warnings at user talk:200.219.132.104, was it an accident (they link to the same thing)?--Mishae (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

More importantly: although there are three warnings on the talk page, according to the block log, they are not in fact blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Callanecc issued a rangeblock for the 200.219.132.0/22 IP range, which covers this IP address. Rangeblocks don't show up in an individual IP address's block log, but it's still there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I removed 2 blocked warnings from user talk:200.219.132.104 page, I will assume it was an accident, and I helped you with it. You are a fair admin, by the way.--Mishae (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that Mishae. I had three tabs open thinking it was the three most recent IPs but it looks like it was just the one three times. AddWittyNameHere, as Writ Keeper said I rangeblocked and left the warning on the recently used IP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good. 't confused me a little bit, but a rangeblock would explain that. Sorry for unnecessarily questioning you there. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Brief theoretical Q

Hi, I'm just trying to understand something re process ... If editor 'A' reverts editor 'B', then editor 'B' opens a Talk thread and invites discussion, then editor 'A' elects never to discuss, then no other editors end up contributing to the opened thread, then editor 'B' goes forward and restores her change ... is editor 'A' justified to revert the change a second time? Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends, generally not because editor 'A' hasn't contributed to the discussion so has given their tacit consent (as long as they knew a thread had been opened) however if it meets the standard exceptions to edit warring, or 3RR, then yes they would be justified in reverting again. If editor 'A' does revert again then rather than reverting back that's when you should try to get a third opinion or politely remind them about the talk page section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarify! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. My stupid analysis: It seems the deck is stacked to tilt toward editor 'A' in that scenario, doesn't it? (I.e. editor 'B' eventually overcomes the obstacles, but that takes some doing, meanwhile editor 'A' has nothing she must do, controls the article text until editor 'B' finishes her journey of tasks, then in the end editor 'A' suffers no drawback [e.g., it's hard to imagine a sanction will occur in a context of making "polite reminder", etc.]. What if editor 'B' were given green light after the second revert, instead of obtaining a 3O, to revert w/o limit!? [The idea that it would stop editor 'A' from controlling the text at an earlier point, which seems good, and puts less burden on editor 'B', which seems fair.])

It'll also depend on whether editor 'A' is reverting something which is long standing or something which editor 'B' just put into the article. If it's long standing then editor 'B' would generally have the green light rather than needing to request a 3O. If it's something editor 'B' has recently added then the burden is on them to show it should be in the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I get you. (Thx!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Just so my understanding is complete, it seems 3RR "bright line" is a sham (i.e. not bright, not even dim) in the scenarios. (Right? [If so, that seems grossly misleading to anyone reading WP documentation in good faith. Or am I missing something!? In addition, I like the scenarios you described, they call for context & judgment ... but aren't there many admins who close their eyes and just count their fingers then block?!] Thanks.)

Don't get me wrong, what I've described are ways of avoiding reaching 3RR. As soon as there is a fourth revert (which also means that the above isn't being followed) there are generally always blocks to enforce order and prevent disruption. What I was describing is how to avoid even getting near 3RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I was meaning the one scenario, if editor 'B' was restoring long-standing material, opened Talk thread, got no participants, and had green light to restore w/o obtaining 3O. (I suggested she s/ have right to revert w/o limit at that point; what if editor 'A' continued to revert that restore?) Also, it seems limitless revert was permitted in scenario where editor 'B' continues to restore w/o 3O, when the material was not long-standing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're at a stage where it depends on the content and the article's history. 3RR is the bright line rule and WP:BRD which is close to what I was describing is a way to come to agreement. So it depends on who does the first revert. In the scenario at the top with the first revert being editor 'A' it is editor 'B' who has the burden. If on the other hand editor 'B' was reverting to a long standing version then it is editor 'A' who has the burden to explain why their new version is better. Allowing someone to revert without limit is problematic because the edit war won't stop, and one of Wikipedia's guiding principles is consensus and to have consensus there needs to be discussion not reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that 3RR is "bad" and BRD is "good", my Q was re when discussion doesn't occur (i.e. then what?). Just for my understanding (I'm continuing to feel there is something I'm missing), in the EWN item you recently handled there were serieses (is that the plural of "series"!?) of reverts, and wanted to get understanding how the reverts both sides way overpassed 3RR, but no bright line seemed to apply. (What am I missing?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what the content is, generally the status quo will remain or someone will jump in and agree with one side. Would you be able to give a link to it please (I've forgotten which is was)? Series is a plural :P. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This page might be of interest and answer your question as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The EWN above this thread, which you ruled "stale". (Weren't both parties way past 3RR?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The TransporterMan essay is interesting, I've started to read it, but I'm immediately taken aback by his advice here, which seems unrealistic, lends tacit approval to edits one disagrees with, and lets bullies and Randies control articles:

If there's been an edit war, with or without three revert rule violations, stop editing that article for awhile. What's awhile? At least a week, longer is better, and a month is about right.

(A month! Wow. Tell all the bully Randies, they will love to hear that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of them probably already knew that. The thing you have to remember is that the rules aren't in place to make this encyclopedia better, they're in place to keep its editors in check. Eric Corbett 10:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And I can see too how some admins have pressed the pedal to the metal vis-a-vis how many reverts constitute an "edit war", since policy says can be less than 3, some admins claim right to block for edit-warring for less than that, even 1. (I'm beginning to believe what they really want is to reduce that further, i.e. to block for edit-warring after 0 reverts, based on their belief the editor was thinking about reverting [i.e. "thought police"]. That sounds ridiculous but I think it is really what they want -- total fiat control.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Only stale because I'd rather not block someone for intense (as opposed to dragged out) when the editors have already stopped, as I said if I'd seen it earlier (or if there was a pattern on the article) I would have blocked or protected. Re TransporterMan's essay: true and I'd probably go with a few days or a week rather than a month depending on the content of the edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That answers. (Just to clarify, I don't necessarily believe in blocks and wasn't complaining about your not blocking someone. I just didn't see any recognition in your EWN handling that there was 99RR going on, and just wanted to confirm if I was hallucinating or not understanding something basic. Thx for your patience in this thread to explain.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

TreCoolGuy

Instead of responding to the complaints or comments left by me, you, or User: Favre1fan93, this was TreCoolGuy's reaction. I am not going to restore it per WP:BLANKING, but that does not make his case look any better at all. STATic message me! 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah he does that. I'm all for continuing this here or on my talk page if it is needed. Here's my edit from last night if not seen by all: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 instances from the talk page history before he was blocked where he's been warned in some form or another related to edit warring, adding original content, removing sourced content, or the like, plus the "I'll change" speech" part 1 and two. As you'll see if you choose to look at all of those, I'm unfortunately the bearer of a good portion of these warning, and Static, you start coming in around #14 that I linked. So this most definitely is not a one time issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if consensus will agree, I can take him under my wing, but he is too active of an editor, and I just had two sleepless nights already. I have a feeling that his fate will be discussed on ANI and will be long.--Mishae (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like Mishae, by all means, but he hasn't show willingness to work with others to improve. It comes in spurts, and then he reverts back to his previous editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That'd be appreciated Mishae. The next step is a (lengthy) block or being dragged over the coals at ANI. So anything you could do would be appreciated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume that people who have such a trend of editing usually have autism or the like. I will call in user @Koavf: over here for maybe some dual watching of his edits and talkpage. Maybe he can be of an assist, plus, he is known for having many editors under his wing which he mentored, including myself.--Mishae (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Helping I'd like to be of assistance but I'm not in a place where I can devote any time to mentoring someone else now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now today he returned to his normal editing habit, which means adding WP:OR and WP:GWAR, even after the countless warnings he has received (can be found in talk page history). See [17], [18], [19], and [20]. These are also the same articles he was blocked for genre warring on before. Can we get a block now? He is obviously not here to contribute positively and abide by the rules explained to him over and over. STATic message me! 17:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has also added info once again without proving it. I'm with Static on this one; how many second chances does one get? After a while, competence is required. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, competence is required, and this user clearly refuses to follow the rules no matter how many times they are made aware of them. Also if anyone wanted to know what "FL" meant in this edit summary, it means "fake laughing", does this really look like someone that is here to contribute? STATic message me! 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there are grounds for a WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR block, but I'd rather a block for something like that came from the community rather than one (relatively new) admin, so if you could post it at ANI (and link to this discussion) that would be appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold on! Maybe I am late, but can't he just do OR and then we will greet his OR edits with either references or {{OR}} template? Like, he only have couple of pages with which he obsessed with.--Mishae (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well edits like this page creation and reasons for inclusion of his OR like this can't really be fixed with your solution Mishae. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: There is a difference between adding OR to a random page, and disruptively changing genres against consensus on the exact same pages were he was warned and blocked for doing the same thing before. This is also known as genre-warring and this user is a classic example. Changes them all the time, never discusses, edit wars continuing to add them. Also per WP:V, WP:OR is not acceptable, I would never let dubious unsourced content that is probable to be false sit in an encyclopedia with a tag that no one is going to solve, especially the user that added the content in the first place. STATic message me! 07:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to unsourced material I am number one who adds sources.--Mishae (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But his OR is literally his own opinions - nothing that can be sourced. It's not like he just adds proper info and forgets the source; the info is rumors, info from unreliable sources, or his own formulated opinions, based on these rumors, or very little reliable info released. (This is mainly coming from the film pages he edits on.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Then block is the only way out here.--Mishae (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I appreciate the idea of helping, but this case doesn't really apply to the type of help or mentorship he would receive. @STATicVapor: Do you want to start up an ANI discussion, as Callanecc suggested? I can assist you in finding diffs or examples if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Well, it might be best to just watch him, I gave him a final warning yesterday, so as soon as he adds unsourced content, WP:OR or anything, report him to WP:AIV, possibly pointing to this discussion and mentioning that all their warnings can be found in their talk page history. That is unless you want to make the ANI report, since that is about the only place that would result in a indef block. I would gladly weigh in, I just do not have the time to write up a report and you have more history with the user anyways. STATic message me! 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

True. I'll watch and see what happens. If he continues to add unsourced genres on music pages (I don't follow that aspect of his editing), let me know, and I'll try to start it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to wait.--Mishae (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I will start an ANI discussion later (getting ready for the Super Bowl), so something will be up after the game and I return home. I will try to be as thorough as I can, and will link back to this discussion, and post in WP:FILM, WP:COMICS, and WP:MUSIC as those are project that cover the pages he edits, and I know there are editors there who will have their opinions as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to drop me a note regarding ANI. If I would have been an admin I would have suggested topic ban. Speaking of Super Bowl XLVIII, he edit it as well, though with references. :)--Mishae (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 make sure you don't canvass. Mishae you don't need to be an admin to propose a topic ban on ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, is it canvassing if I approach those three projects in a neutral tone? Is that still being selective? And I don't know if this will be up tonight. Within the week. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

With a sanctions discussion I wouldn't mention it on WikiProject talk pages, the ANI regs know what they are looking for. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the tip. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well since you commenting here not on the bottom, then my comment that I put couple sections down was ignored: Either way, user talk:189.61.0.190 have been actively editing Israeli Air Force doing 25 reference details edits per page. I think the time came for an indefinite block of that IP address! Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sting is going to WWE (2014-present)

Well, bitch I apologize I guess I was just mad. Ill try to keep my cool, but Sting(wrestler) really has signed with WWE. Why else would I edit his page? I mean c'mon are you serious? Could you put the edits back.

I'm happy to make the edit, but to do so we need at least one reliable source so that the content is verifiable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sudeep_Thepade

Sudeep Thepade is an important name in image processing research. you can just google it if you don't know and don't have knowledge. It's not an advertising, I am a student of him. People like you don't have any knowledge but pretend to know everything. Do you ever seen any importance of research in engineering? Sudeep's gesture recognition work is being used in TV industry by a leading company.

If you act like this, wikipedia will always be a dump people's reference and will never become encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.69.194 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RFP requests

Hello, I know you're busy, but when you have a moment, could you please look at the RFPs again, especially Kim Källström, which is beginning to get out of hand. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Protection templates

I'm unsure why you reverted that. The existing table is very unclear. Right now it implies that {{pp-template}} should be used on semi or fully protected pages, which is not the case. Please restore my version with the extra column and let's work together to debug the inaccuracies. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that {{pp-template}} is the only protection template which can be used on template protected pages, and it can be used on semi and fully protected pages. So having template protection between full and semi will mean that {{pp-template}} is the only one which runs all the way across and the others are duplicated for full and semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually give me a minute and I'll try something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 Is there a way to have the border on all of the rows & columns without needed to use it for each box? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a version which includes template protection at User talk:Callanecc/Protection templates. It shows what I mean with including template protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is {{pp-template}} used on fully and semi protected pages? That seems wrong, that implies that a Template editor is needed to edit the page when in fact it may be only a semi and any autoconfirmed can do it. I would think that misleading. Technical 13 (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

{{pp-template}} is designed so that it will display the correct message and icon. Reason is that it needs to work on because templates are semi, templateeditor and full protected. It's called pp-template because that's the message it shows is primarily for high risk templates (and now modules as well). So pp-template doesn't mean templateeditor protection it means that the protection (whether it be semi, templateeditor or full) is applied to a high risk template/module. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it seems inconsistent with pp-full (full protection), pp-semi (semi-protection), and pp-move (move protection) which are all named based on the protection level. Idea... Can we move pp-template to pp-highrisk (or pp-hrtemp or something similar) and create individual pp-(full|te|semi)-temp that call the corresponding version of the template so that any non-admin looking at it know what exactly it does and it is consistent with the current naming convention? Technical 13 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's possible, but I don't really see the point since the only use of templateeditor protection would be for highrisk pages, so {{pp-template}} would redirect to {{pp-highrisk}}. The whole point of my edits to those three template were so that you didn't need to pick the right template you could just pick your reason (that is {{pp-blp}} rather than {{pp-semi-blp}} and {{pp-full-blp}}) so I would be against making it more complicated by adding new templates which can only be used with one type of protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For {{pp-blp}} that is fine because there is no "blp protection" that it could be confused with, on the other hand, there is "template protection" so that one could be confusing. There is should be at least one template for each protection type (edit, move), level (full, template, semi), and reason ("highrisk", "blp", "sock"). I'm still in need of my morning coffee and have some errands to run, I'll work on building the net of templates in my userspace and get back to you with what I see as unconfusing and productive and we can talk about if it will work from the standpoint of the admins. :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

Could you please semi-protect the WKSI-FM page, please? User:Fluffernutter had previously protected it back on December 5, 2013 for one month due to a content dispute (apparently an admin wants it his way and no one elses, regardless of sources). The user has again reverted sourced material for original research and unsourced content. If you could please, re-semi-protect the page and this time for two months.

In case you are wondering why I am asking you, you made the latest admin edit on AIV and Fluffernutter is offline. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd for one month and remember you can always put your request at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank ya kindly. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese giant salamander

Users Wcslibrary1 and Wcslibrary2 are obviously the same person. Considering another vandal there is the IP-address assigned to Wellington Christian School, I'd say it's safe to say they're the same. When combined, they are well-past their 4th warning by now. Any chance they could be blocked now per WP:DUCK, or should I start an SPI no matter how obvious?

On a different note, I saw you doing some RevDel earlier. Would you please take a look at Keith Davis (USC and Giants football player)'s history to see if certain revisions that have been reverted are bad enough to need to be hidden? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done as vandalism accounts.

Done and blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your, as always, speedy response. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't do much SPI work these days, just whack 'em with the banhammer and move on :-) Guy (Help!) 14:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries :). For the future there is a box at the top (which is hidden) which you can use to submit a correctly formatted and located case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force

Well, user user talk:189.61.0.190 have not learned a single thing from his block and even didn't showed up at ANI. His IP is still active. So, long story short, I notified him regarding maybe merging his 15 edits per page into one, that way there wont be a whole bunch of Wikipedians following his edits. That was the main reason why I warranted a block, its not only because it was disruptive but it also was 10 to 15 useless edits per page. I hope by tomorrow I will get a reply, if not, I will propose 48 hour block. One thing is good though from those blocks is that user User talk:200.219.132.104 have stopped editing (for now). To be even more fair, I left user 189.61.0.190 a note regarding Sandbox and Help me templates which he can (and should use) if he wants to help this project in a positive way. P.S. Regarding TreCoolGuy, I notified a Russian Wikipedian who have a degree in psychology, so maybe he can shed the light on productivity of this user. Another thing, can you do a revert of 25 edits that user 189.61.0.190 did to the above article? Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

cye

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.— --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U Etiquette

Hey,

I am contacting you because you recently imposed a 5 day block on user:jakandsig for his edit warring and personal attacks. This user has been disrupting several articles for about a month now, and this was his second block in just a few weeks. Before the block, I had been laying the groundwork to file an RFC/U against him and am still interested in doing so. I think all the minimum requirements have been met at this point -- including multiple attempts by editors to reason with him on talk pages -- and I have the support of four other editors heavily involved in editing video game articles. I have never done this before, so what I wanted to ask you is what the etiquette would be on this since he is currently blocked. Should I wait to file until the block is lifted, or does that matter? Indrian (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any official etiquette re waiting for a block to expire, but if it were me I probably would so that they are available to respond rather than stuck behind the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks for the input. Indrian (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection?

How can they stil edit this article, since you added protection? [21] Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I used pending changes protection which allows non-autoconfirmed users to edit, but their changes aren't visible to the general public until they are reviewed by a reviewer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:304:cecf:62e0::/64

Can you please reblock this IP Range for a longer time? He's returned under the IP Address of 2602:304:cecf:62e0:d77:67ff:31ea:d0e0, and he is continuing to vandalize articles without any regard to Wikipedia's editing policy or the warnings that I had given him. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The range the IP is from is a /24 which is just too big to block. But I have semi-protected the page for a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The speedy/prod thing

Okay the page you changed the tag for let me explain, the guy made the same page earlier that was deleted already with a similar name but one letter was missing. So there you go!

Wgolf (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw that then, the last page was deleted per WP:A7, however this isn't about a person so that criteria doesn't apply to this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Total Recall (1990 film)

Can you extend PC time? There have been reverts lately. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

Hi Callanecc. Thank you for your devoted, careful work closing discussions at WP:ANRFC. As an ANRFC closer and an arbitration clerk, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Procedural note regarding a procedurally closed RfC? I'm unsure if a close would "disrupt the arbitration case" (as noted by Nyttend), but would you ask the arbitrators if they are okay with an admin assessing the consensus at Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC? (I had made an ANRFC request for closure here.)

The Arbitration Committee doesn't rule on content, so I think a close would be helpful in determining the scope of the gun control article. If you or the arbitrators agree a close would be helpful, would you leave a note on User talk:Nyttend explaining that it is okay for him (or another editor) to close the discussion? If you agree that a close would disrupt the arbitration case, then I withdraw my request my closure. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the drafting arbs to take a look, thanks for the message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus

Hi Callanecc, per our previous conversation on the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries article following the AE, I followed your advice, and well... the system appears to have been "gamed". Instead of the original two editors answering / explaining their reversions, a third editor has turned up to revert again without making any comment on the substance of the edit. Brewcrewer has a long history of this behaviour - like Plotspoiler - acting as an "enforcer" for other people's discussions. In fact this is not the first time I have seen them behave the same way on a single article together - reverting without commenting on the topic. I will avoid speculation. However, this continued behaviour is contrary to accepted editing practice and is impeding progress on the article and is stopping any chance of achieving consensus through discussion. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your position I think Brewcrewer's suggestion is quite a good one. Go through all of your suggestions piece by piece. It looks like the others, particularly Greyshark09 are willing to listen and work with you to help make changes. At the moment there is a consensus (of three) against making one large scale edit however, as I said, it looks like they are willing to discuss it piece by piece with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I see that you are assuming good faith with respect to Brewcrewer. Years of experience with him have taught me otherwise. However, I will continue to follow your suggestions but I really need some advice assuming nothing happens.

Imagine for a while that Brewcrewer is playing games here and has no intention to comment. I don't see anywhere in policy or guidelines that an editor is allowed to act as an "enforcer" on behalf of other editors.

Do you really believe there is a consensus of 3 against 1 on the page? How can reverts without explanation count towards consensus? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Main reason is that I see what they mean, try posting what you want changed in smaller bits so that they have a chance to talk about it. If after you've discussed it (on the article's talk page) for a while and nothing happens then come back and let me know.

It's pretty easy to argue that he agrees with those users.

In a sense yes, there are three other editors who don't agree with your change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But posting in smaller bits is exactly what i did (see the summary history i posted at the AE). I opened many piecemeal talk threads which remain unanswered. I have already done what I am being told to do.

Brewcrewer's post was misrepresentative. His advice might as well have been "Once, I suggest you make your edits in the English language going forward". That would have been equally good advice but equally misrepresentative.

So I really need help to break through. Greyshark has zero incentive to respond now.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Go level 2 section by level 2 section and solve one at a time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Solution and consensus requires someone to respond to my comments. I cannot solve the points alone.

This whole thing is about incentivising editors to discuss the content. I am discussing and the other editors are edit-warring.

How can I move forward? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer are you willing to work with Oncenawhile on the content? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack that is appropriate to delete?

Hey, we've never interacted but I saw that you closed a number of my speedy delete noms so I figured you're as good an admin to ask about this as any. I had the misfortune to wade into what appear to be a couple of very heated AFD nominations here and here, and one of the editors involved in creating the subject articles has accused me of sockpuppetry. After the first incident I asked him to stop or report. Then he did it again on the second nomination. I deleted the second accusation per WP:NPA but he has restored it. Was I out of line in deleting that accusation? I also left a level 2 NPA warning on his talk page (since I had previously asked him to stop on the nomination page and he did it again, so I figured level 2 was appropriate). Anyhow, since I'm obviously involved in this I'm not sure how to respond and whether the personal attacks should be left up or deleted. Plus I'm the only person who's commented on his talk page so a referral to RFC wouldn't seem to be in order. I'm not asking you to intervene, but if you could provide me any advice on what the appropriate next steps are here I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! Wieno (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And I just now notice that the thread right above this one is a discussion between you and the user at issue. Well that may be for the best, as you're familiar with his/her editing history and he/she seems to trust you, so I can't be accused of selectively picking an admin to ask about this who might have a bias against him/her. If you feel uncomfortable wading into this, though, then I completely understand that as well. Wieno (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it would probably be best to ignore it as it suggests at WP:NPA. But if you can't or don't want to do that then it would be best to ask Oncenawhile to strike it. Personal attacks are only removed in some cases, and the person they are against really shouldn't do it except in very severe cases. But see what Oncenawhile has to say. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it was quite frustrating in the heat of the moment, but I'll just ignore it. Wieno (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Schock

Is there a consensus to either add or omit such detail? If not, I can re-add the RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the RFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar

There is not a single published source on the internet for this person.Hoops gza (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify the article for WP:CSD#G1, if it were in mainspace then it would qualify under WP:CSD#A7 but as it isn't I don't have a reason to speedy delete it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Barun De

Hi, ordinarily I'd understand a decline on the basis of "not enough recent disruption" but the situation at Barun De has been going on for months. Examples of off-article discussion include this, this, this, this and this. There's a lot more out there but tracking the IPs is a nightmare. The IP and his registered accounts are the only person other than myself and admins who have edited the article in all that time ... and all we have been doing is trying to fix the problems that person introduces. Can you reconsider, please? It's ridiculous (the disruption, that is). - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to pending changes protect it for a few months? It's probably worth submitting an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) appears to have stepped in with a short semi. The SPI would be unlikely to achieve much, imo: the anon has already admitted on numerous occasions that they are Bikramjit De, a son of the article subject. CU will not link to usernames and the edits are plain disruptive regardless of origin. They'll be back next month! - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can present diffs which link accounts we can ask CU to confirm and do a sleeper check. We can also ask them to look into doing an IP block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Declined AIV report

Hello, Callanecc. I thought I would let you know that I disagree with you in this edit. I read the comment about blanking the talk page as meaning "there have been earlier messages that you should take note of when assessing this report that are no longer visible, as the talk page has been blanked, rather than as meaning that blanking the talk page was the vandalism being reported. However, whether that was the correct interpretation or not, did you look at the edit that was linked in the AIV report? I really don't see how it could possibly be seen as anything other than vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking the report. I missed the rest of that edit (the refactoring). I've also revoked talk page access due to them abusing the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Dear Callanecc,

Thank you for your message. May you please elaborate your warning? As far as I can tell, and I think my edits show, I have upheld the rules of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and used the talk page. In addition, if I find another editor's actions to be disruptive and/or professional, where may I raise the issue? --Precision123 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, please do not take my message as hostile in any way. I completely understand that you are doing your job as an administrator and I appreciate your advice. I have done my best to be a good editor and I know there are ways to improve with experience. Thank you again for your professionalism. I look forward to cooperating more with you and other editors. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You can take that to ANI.--Mishae (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I gave you that message is because you broke the 1 revert rule on SodaStream. The message was so that you know that there special conditions on those articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, I honestly feel like I am being bullied by some editors here. I hope you realize that all I did was make a one-sentence improvement, which I think you will see made the sentence more verifiable per the source and attempted to eliminate the WP:editorializing problems. Please advise. --Precision123 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely not our intention. The Arbitration Committee has found that topics on this issue are contentious so they've decided to restrict all editors to one revert per day. The two things you need to do differently are to make the first edit then if it's reverted follow the process at WP:BRD and start a discussion on the article's talk page and don't revert the page again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Could you please semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) page again for at least two months? User:Yunshui had previously protected it back on January for one month. 183.171.177.207 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until it expires and see if it's actually needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Get ready at 10:09 (Wikipedia time).183.171.177.165 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Peyronel

Created by sock puppet of Fairy Spit. Could you look at it per WP:G5? Thank you much :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G5 is speedy deletion criteria meaning that it doesn't need to go through AFD. But I'd like to see at least the beginnings of a discussion as to whether we should keep it or not given the sourcing. Happy to be convinced to speedy delete it though (or feel free to tag it with {{db-g5}} and get a second opinion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus...

Sorry to keep bothering you with this. Please could you take a look at the latest reversion-without-explanation at the page? I don't want to revert the revert as I suspect it will only make things worse. But Brewcrewer's actions, despite his glib response to your question above, have so far shown no sign of collaborative or constructive behaviour to justify his revert warring. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the full protection might sort that out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back

I have replied to you comments on the following SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zimmermanh1997. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bold redirects

I have actually been discussing it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#International children's networks for the discussion. Finealt (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's good that you started a discussion, but the one user who responded said that they agreed in principle but had another question before you did it. It's also generally a good idea to be active on Wikipedia for at least a while after you make very bold edits in case someone wants to discuss them with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Katrina Villegas

Understood on the de facto ban revert. Well, I assume that he/she's already banned as per Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Andrea Villegas, although I do get your drift. It's just that I do have a hunch that this problem user would continue on his trolling habit for weeks or even years. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Community discussion on banning users has to take place at WP:AN (or WP:ANI). Having handled number of the SPIs I agree, but a ban discussion needs to take place at AN, though the only difference it makes in cases like this is if the user cares that they've been banned and stops. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, true. I've been thinking about letting it pass for a few months to see if the user's behaviour improves at least somewhat, but from what it seems he/she isn't giving a damn or two about what we say about his/her hoaxing activity, so would it hurt if I start a consensus? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Finealt

I'm not sure you are watching the page, so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to comment.

User talk:Finealt#Redirecting instead of merging

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.223.169 (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

possible sock of user you blocked.

Hi, Callanecc.

Could you take a look at the contributions of User:86.52.12.101 who geolocates to the same place as User:78.156.109.166 whom you've just blocked for six months, and who have both Ip 86 IP 78 by mere coincidence, pinged User:Great Time on his talk page? Great Time himself is a problem as well, if you look at his talk page and the ref desk discussions and his "contributions" there.

Thanks μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PS, funny the Pakistani IP above's single edit has been to ping you with a "hi" as well. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may want to see User:Pubserv. Aside from a strikingly similar interest in earthquakes, angels, Zyprexa and winking, he flat out said he's the same person. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like it couldn't be clearer, it could. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 86... for a week for block evasion and Pubserv for disruptively editing while logged out. I'm not convinced that Great Time is a sock (could quite possibly be a friend) but well see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. Just a question, though. Given 86 is a sock of an account that's been blocked for 6 months, and had his talk page privileges revoked, shouldn't he be blocked longer than a week? Thanks for the help. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because different people can be assigned an IP address to use shorter blocks are generally used. For example vandal only registered accounts are blocked indefinitely however vandal only IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely because they may eventually be reassigned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, but you may also want to look at this edit, which was made by User:Pubserv but given a signature forged to IP 78: Earthquake anniversary.--Special:Contributions/78.156.109.166|78.156.109.166 (User talk:78.156.109.166|talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC). I think an SPI is warranted. let me know if you need a formal complaint elsewhere to act if you can't do so based on this evidence of forgery. Again, thanks. I wouldn't have the patience or stomach for this if I were you. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already gave him the full monty instead of just a week. My bad, truly sorry. Again, my thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all that's what a user talk page is for. You might find this script useful - each time a blocked user's userpage or talk page is linked it puts a line through it if they are blocked and if you hover over it gives details. You can still file an SPI (and include Great Time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I installed the script. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail Call

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.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Are you ready to semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.64 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No need just yet as pages aren't protected pre-emptively, the protection has just ended so let's see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

One reason why I put it as a speedy instead of a prod was

Someone made the page a few days earlier and I put it as a prod yet it got deleted as a speedy (odd I know) Wgolf (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what's happening with that, unless it was written differently and looked like it was covered by the A7 criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

Greetings. For what it's worth, my interactions with 108.28.104.22 began when he/she engaged me in a dispute at "Fort Lee Lane Closure Scandal". He/she then followed me to Nikki Haley and Justin Amash and reverted recent edits of mine there as well. I've noticed that other recent edits by him/her ([22], [23], [24]) have not been particularly constructive. At this point, I'm not sure whether he/she is editing in good faith, or with the intention of being disruptive.CFredkin (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had a look through their contribs. If they come back and do the same thing tomorrow then I might get a little more involved, but hopefully they continue (or start) to discuss. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Milky Way

There have been reverts; extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

PC is indefinite and I've semi-protected it for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

More PC-protected pages?

What about Kane (wrestler)? --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And O. J. Simpson murder case? --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither has had any edits for at least a couple of days so we'll see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

Thanks for looking into this issue.

I just wanted to specify that Bull-Doser is de facto banned, but not formally banned. There's been a controversy at the time of his block in 2012 because the blocking administrator had taken upon himself to de jure ban Bull-Doser without consulting the community. This had led some subsequent administrators over the months to think that BD has been formally banned. But in reality, he is only de facto banned.

Now if Bull-Doser continues to evade his block instead of following the WP:BASC procedure, he may eventually get formally banned as well. But until then, I would just put the {{blocked user}} tag instead of the {{banned user}} tag (unless the latter tag can also be used for defacto banned users).

Regards. Farine (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, and I've fixed the link as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the reason I used the banned user template is because of the block reason linked which linked to a decision to ban, but it looks like that was later changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Page protection

Thank you for correcting my entry about page protection. I've resubmitted the request for Dynamics NAV Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection --JSebastian83 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A sock puppet?

Hi there, apparently I was flagged as a sock puppet. Please can you investigate and look me up anywhere including tens of mentions of me attending conferences and being a real person? I'm not sure why someone tried to edit my account page, and I did notice my coworkers indeed using the same IP. That's Elizabeth Grey and Josh. As to my account page I did copy some of the template from another user and I'm happy to update, I thought I was following a standard. Happy to arrange a call or Skype or to write a letter to prove I am indeed a real person... Thank you for your consideration, Krystian — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrystianSzastok (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes

Could you please semi-protect this page for 6 months, or rangeblock the IP? He's back again, and I don't think he's going to go away anytime soon, especially after analyzing his history of editing. He tends to return over periods of up to a month of inactivity. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

notification

Please see the evidence at hand. It is not the first time that QuackGuru has been banned from the Chiropractic page. In fact he has been banned multiple times and for lengths as long as 1 year. DJFryzy (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and if you wish to file an enforcement request regarding that please see the instructions at the top of this page. The reason for the warning was you labeling of QuackGuru's edit(s) as vandalism when it wasn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

About bioresonance page protection

The current page about bioresonance is not neutral and and giving the readers a negative impression. I tried to add Medical Research from Medical Journals which are according to page not exists, but very resistantly the page editors are tying to maintain the only negative ideas. I suggest to suspend this page (cause it is giving wrong information to people) until our discussions are solved.

My last comment on discussion page is,

As a Specialist Family Medicine Doctor with about 20 years of experience, I am still having difficulties why you are resistant to publish the positive medical research which is on PUBMed? It is our (Medically Educated people`s) most respected database, not every publication is listed there, it has it`s rules). But giving a wrong impression to the people Bioresonance is pseudoscience (very big word, how you will prove it? And as normally you are unable to prove it why this text does not still have any positive finding about Bioresonance, but even some TV gossips?), it has no scientific research ?(but there is scientific research and why not to also put the results of these? Are you medical biophysics authors to judge these studies and to decide to put only the negative results... why?)

Even about tobacco cessation there are very good studies with positive results. Will you let me to inform people about these scientific studies or will you only talk about BBC show gossips (very encyclopedic isn`t it)?

Every method can be used with bad intentions on the hands of dishonest people, (is it normal to emphasize that much in an encyclopedia instead of being neutral), like mammographies, antidepressants (antidepressants has an effect similar to placebo levels by the way), cholesterol lowering drugs (our centuries most shameful medical error)), but the main idea of current text is not neutral giving out an very negative impression instead of being neutral and letting readers of wikipedia to see both sides of the issue and decide themselves, why?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Enigma9035: Wikipedia works by consensus, you need to get other editors to agree with you not edit war over it. The big box on Talk:Bioresonance therapy will give you some pointers on what the policies relating to topics such as these you would be well advised to read and understand those before continuing. I would also suggest that you propose the edits you wish to make section by section rather than all at once as it will be easier for other editors to contribute to the consensus building. Please note that the Arbitration Committee has authorised administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on editors who fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process, these sanctions can include blocks from editing or bans from certain topic areas. This notice has been recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for suggestions. I will continue on the discussion page and see the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You have semi-protected a page including contentions content about living persons.

The thing to do is remove the content until the matter is resolved. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC) That page is Tor (anonymity network). The material is about a rumor that two individuals are covertly working with the NSA. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

The page has no been protected [25], why?--Windows66 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Admins are human; we forget too. I've gone ahead and implemented the protection Callanecc decided upon. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just the bot said that it wasn't going to happen. Thanks very much user.--Windows66 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fully protected not semi-protected but either way that is fine, thanks again. Y--Windows66 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus closes on AfDs without participation

Hi Callanecc, I wanted to ask about your no consensus closes for Integral Tradition Publishing and Lima Publishing. As all of these discussions ran for two weeks without any editors arguing that they be kept, leaving only the nominator's arguments that they be deleted, I wonder if no consensus is really the right outcome for them; a soft delete (i.e., treating as an uncontested PROD) may have been better. KoodibooK, in a similar situation, had previously been a contested PROD, so it's probably fair to call that one no consensus. But since Integral Tradition and Lima hadn't been subjected to any sort of deletion process before, deletion may have been a better outcome. Did you come to your decision due to the lack of participation in the debate or because you found the nominator's arguments insufficient? --BDD (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I closed them as no consensus was due to the lack of participation. There was a discussion towards the end of last year about soft deleting and there was a weak consensus in favour of soft deleting unopposed AFDs. There needed to be further discussion before a change to the admins' instructions which there hasn't been yet. Though in hindsight soft deleting them wouldn't have been a problem really. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I remember those discussions, and I think that weak consensus is enough to go by for now. But I do think it's up to an administrator's judgment at this point. There's nothing necessarily wrong with those closes. I did want to make sure you knew about some of those recent conversations. Personally, I think these outcomes almost punish users who decide to bring something to a discussion—i.e., had the user just PRODded those two articles, they would've been deleted after a week instead of NC after two. But again, either outcome is valid, so if you're happy with the closes, I won't force the issue. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave them how they are, but I'll certainly consider soft deleting in the future. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this edit, doing what I should have done but forgot to. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I saw that you had to go and figured it had dropped off the to do list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal II episodes

Can you please semi-protect this article for at least 1-2 months? There has been a history of disruptive editing by multiple IPs in the article for the past several months now. Most of them have ignored my warnings multiple times over, and the most recent IP (118.218.16.201) completely ignored my request for him to stop adding his made-up info/incoherent sentences. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Having had a look at some of the edits, I don't think protection is warranted in this case. It looks like at least some of the IP edits try good faith contributions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please block this IP for about a week: 118.218.16.201? He repetitively adds incoherent chunks and original research to the article, completely ignoring all of my warnings. Also, he made a personal attack on my talk page. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing blockable there. Try discussing the changes with them and see if you can help them edit constructively. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asaaaasa

Could you re-open this one please, there are some new socks. Not sure how to re-open it myself, so I've probably broken it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've opened up a new one because that's going to be easier then re-opening and re-requesting CheckUser on the last SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously that's the better way to do it. Not enough coffee yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Muffadal Saifuddin is locked with wrong information

the article should be fully protected in its stable NPOV form : [26] as I dont see the issue resolving in near future , hence for NPOV both should be written as claimants only citing various issues over the succession. Moreover the matter has gone into courts as in the alleged succession video[27] ,no one was named by Burhanuddin as he was completely disabled and could not speak, move and was made like a Idol to preside over the ceremony.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by203.192.208.58 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version. When fully protecting pages, to be neutral, administrators must protect the page in its current version so as not to favour a particular side. Please gain a consensus on the talk page for any changes you'd like to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this much needed step, talk page discussion: [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

still no action or discussion on this issue on the above talk page. Please consider for reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- As Crisco said on the talk page I can't edit through the protection until there is agreement on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

please read through the discussion. The person is clearly not the Daa'i but just a claimant . By still keeping this version one is taking side. the last edit by crisco was NPOV and reflected the ground truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.205 (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think wrong information which is not verified from sources should not be locked indefinitely as this article falsely assigns Muffadal as the daai when he is just a claimant. Please come to the talk page to discuss this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.237.135 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No one is coming to the discussion page on the last section discussed in the talk page. This article in current form is conveying factually incorrect information. How is it possible that an article has been in a wrong state without giving any reasons or discussing about it after its locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.154 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Threats and intimidation reported from Muffadal's camp

Bohras who refuse to denounce Qutbuddin face threats, this shows how serious this controversy is and by taking the side of the opressor the locked article is clearly locked in the wrong version : [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.218.74 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Volunteer Marek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding a previous SPI

Hi Callanecc,

A user has been going around promoting Tumbleman's post-block claims.[30][31][32][33] The story is that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence.

This silly drama could be ignored were it not for the user continuing Tumbleman's arguments on the Sheldrake talk page, arguments which failed to gain any consensus (and, in my opinion, don't even make sense), and correspondingly making edits similar to those that Tumbleman made.

The user also relays Tumbleman's aspersions (echoed in his post-block socks) which somehow make it my fault that admins concluded that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE ("a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll")[34]. I don't think aspersions-by-proxy (of a blocked user, no less) is any more appropriate than direct aspersions.

Since you handled the aforementioned SPI, would you please explain to this user that the no-IP-socking claim cannot possibly be true? The user had been promoting similar ideas in the (in my opinion frivolous and evidence-free) arbcom case on Sheldrake he initiated, which was quickly dismissed. I believe I'm the exact wrong person to talk to him about this. vzaak 14:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some point tomorrow or the day after. I've had a quick look at their comments and it appeals they've missed the point a little (for example there is an overlap of edits and it doesn't matter because there is checkuser proven block evasion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all complicated by the peculiar story Tumbleman told about sharing his password with a paid-professional Wikipedia editor, which, even if we believe that and ignore its implications, wouldn't explain other checkuser results, including but not limited to this check which is not in the SPI. The continued post-block drama, still with us in the form of tall tales told through proxies, just confirms the assessment the admins made about Tumbleman, in my view. vzaak 16:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually on second thought, might be better to just ignore it and move on. If Askahrc (or Tumbleman) want to take is up in the appropriate venue then we can discuss it at that time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaaand the user starts an ANI. Boy did I see this coming -- someone steeped in such conspiracies, and animated by them, is unlikely to function smoothly here. vzaak 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up on RFC at Lipnitskaia

Thanks for your support of the RFC at Julia Lipnitskaia about the spelling of her name and page move. Presently a new editor is ignoring the RFC and your request to respect the RFC to its conclusion. I have tried to post your decision about this on the edit history page there, but the new mobile user Dramaqueen1789 does not leave any edit comments and apparently does not read the edit page. This back-and-forth on reverting the spelling of the Yulia-Julia name is likely to get worse during the closing week of the Olympics with pagecount spikes there already going as high as 60,000 per day. Possibly a message from you the Dramaqueen1789 may help, or, possibly a 7-day page protect for admin only edits until the Olympics ends. RFC is presently at about six to one in favor of "Yulia" over "Julia" to move the page. If you could glance at this. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is at the moment. In fact this edit by Dramaqueen1789 should probably be the one which stands given that's the article's current title. Depending on how many more comments there are I might suggest that the RFC is treated more like a requested move and closed after being open for seven days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Update after one week. Thanks for the note from last week for Julia Lipnitskaia. My own interest here was in studying general edit behavior for wikipages with over 50,000 page count per day. This is Olympics week for the Gold medal and the page counts for her should exceed 50,000 per day, just like last week. A full Page move actually makes sense here since the Olympics is a once in 4 years event, and the RFC after the full week is at 6:1 in favor or Yulia Lipnitskaya, with no new opinions for several days. If its any help, this is the pronunciation key which is presently not posted on the page as she does not speak English (YOU-lee-ya leep-NITZ-ka-ya). Since the RFC has been given the full week now, everyone's concerns would be answered if you could close the RFC and move the page as you decide is best. Much thanks for monitoring this over the last week. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion and moved the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1's edits at Hinduism in Pakistan

Sir, I believe you object to Toddy1's edits at Hinduism in Pakistan (he removed some sentences). Can you restore the sentences he removed? You have put the article on discretionary sanctions and so I thought it is better to ask you for help. Thanks for the help in advance!—Khabboos (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No I don't object to Toddy1's edits not in the least and I welcome the third opinion. The only reason I added his name in my comment is because he is also editing the page and at least somewhat involved in the edit war so should therefore be included in the notifications. And you don't need to call anyone on Wikipedia sir, we're all equals here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a sentence, 'In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan' with this as a reference: "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 29 January 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help). The reference says the same thing as my sentence, but User:AcidSnow is reverting my edit repeatedly, so I request you to add that sentence in the wikipedia article on Hinduism in Pakistan in the 'persecution' section. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you just close the thread about my IBAN with Pete/Skyring?

I have been patiently waiting for something constructive to happen, following all the rules and virtually avoiding posting at all. He has been writing all his usual Wikilawering nonsense, blatantly breaking the spirit of the IBAN. And no consequence.

You have let him win again.

Why, oh why, oh why?

Yet again ANI has proved its uselessness. HiLo48 (talk)

Because there was a request on WP:AN by a few users that it be closed as it wasn't going anywhere anymore.

There is action, it's tightened and both of you were warned not to skirt it.

Posting here is a technical violation of the IBAN as you aren't asking for any of the last three dot points at WP:BANEX. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What? I don't understand that. I'm not a lawyer. Can you please address the points I made? I've done the right thing. Someone else does the wring thing. And suffers no consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement I made in my close made it quite clear that admins have a reasonably large discretion to block for a relatively extended period for edits which may be gaming the system or an attempt to hound or stalk. In that way it's more likely that an admin will block.

Regarding the comment to you I made in my last reply. WP:BANEX allows you to: report behaviour, ask for clarification and appeal the ban. Ask yourself if this discussion does that (it probably meets asking for clarification now). But you both need to be careful, not just Pete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. I still feel strongly that I'm the innocent party here, but was happy to have the IBAN imposed to get some peace. Trouble is, it stopped being peaceful when he began to oppose my well known and obvious position on a Talk page. And I'm now genuinely puzzled as to how I should respond if he repeats his behaviour that caused Drmies to post that thread in the first place. I should not be forced to stop making the sorts of comments I've already made at that somewhat controversial article many times already, just because the other subject of the IBAN posts confrontationally there. Your suggestion please? HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Next time they do let me know or post on ANI, linking to both prior ANI threads and this one. I imagine a block will be forthcoming. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

174.236.68.115

He's on 174.236.103.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You should probably just block the range again because he's just going to be attacking every other article now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough,

Done for 31 hours. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

He came back as AS92813 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Appears to be a sleeper from the garbage from last year so you were probably right about the Don't feed the zords/buickcenturydriver stuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They're evading the IP range block but I'll leave it for someone else so can figure out what's going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious now. Still, the account should be blocked for evasion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested CU to try and figure out what's going on. I've blocked them for the same amount of time as the IPs pending the outcome of the SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Socks started a thread on me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've commented there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And see 174.252.17.111. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a gentle word?

This has got to stop. I'm making a complaint of a breach of the interaction ban in place. I am not asking for any formal action except to ask that the personal attacks cease immediately. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack and I don't know how you would have seen it if you were following the spirit of the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages which I have edited are added to my watchlist and I noticed an edit on Drmies' talk page. On looking closer I found a series of edits all along similar lines, referencing me. It would be helpful if this behaviour ceased. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but finding things which are on their talk page goes toward proving HiLo's point about wikistalking. My suggestion would be to avoid HiLo, including articles and talk pages they focus on, and contribute (including working with other users) in other areas for a while. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice all round. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, while you're at it, maybe you can close that ANI discussion? (Note that I haven't yet followed the diffs here.) Drmies (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I just saw the thread, and then your contributions--I was looking to click "thank", but there's so many that I can't find it: you've been on a tear. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Haha no worries. I saw your comments (where ever they were) re the topic ban. I just couldn't see enough coherent discussion and agreement on topic banning that I'd be able to justify one. However re your comment about broad discretion to block - most definitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for blocking this block-evading vandal; you've made Wikipedia that much of a better place. Let's just hope he doesn't come back under another address. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Burton-on-Trent Editor

Hi Callanecc-

Since you've taken an interest in the IP whose disruptive editing I've been reverting, regarding why I cited him as a "sock," you might be interested to know that he hopped from 2.220.249.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), to evade your block of him, to 2.223.224.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). And he has, of course, picked up right where he left off. Grandpallama (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. I've also changed the links you left to them, hope you don't mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And no objections to making them links, of course. Grandpallama (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RFP

Hi Callanecc,

I am not really certain how long I would need that page protected. I am guessing one month would do it. The page has been blanked again, so I am fairly certain the user in question is a sock. Can you please try and time it so that the page is locked while the content is there? If I am right, this user does tend to edit-war. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Update - the user who was being disruptive has been blocked after admitting to being a sock. However, I suspect he is a sock of Lucy-Marie/DeFacto, the subject of that LONGTERM draft. DeFacto has over seventy confirmed socks and probably two dozen more that have been blocked without anyone making the connection to him. He has taken to using several accounts at once, and deliberately drawing attention to one of them so that it gets blocked and everyone thinks he is gone. He might have been blocked for now, but he will almost certainly be back. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if they come back after the protection expires and I'll either semi or fully protect it again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not think it will be a problem in the future. What makes DeFacto so difficult is that he learns. Every time one of his accounts gets blocked, he figures out how he got caught, then adjusts his behaviour accordingly. So I doubt he will touch that page again; it is too obvious. I suppose that one of the reasons why I kept that article around is to catch him - he was always going to go looking for something like that.

And he really does not like me in particular, since I have caught over a dozen of his accounts - including some of his more covert ones - in the past, and I think he holds me accountable for getting his original account blocked. But nothing seems to stop him for long. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, it would appear that you missed the reason for the alleged "disruption" to Prisonermonkeys' user page - it is a nasty little hate page, which contraves WP:POLEMIC, at the very least. It was blanked as suggested in WP:POLEMIC, but Prisonermonkeys then lashed out, and used his standard defence tactic when cornered, that of alleging the subject of his ire is a sock-puppet of DeFacto or Lucy-Marie, something he has done before - see [35] for a recent example, one which you contributed to in defence of the accused, just before the allegation was dismissed and the SPI closed. As you have now fully protected his hate page, for the time being, perhaps you could blank it as required by WP:POLEMIC. Thanks, More sober now (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And it is quite clear that "More sober now" is another sock account of "Still wasted", who is in all likelihood DeFacto himself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal blocking and article protection

Maybe it's "all in a day's work" for you. But I just want to let you know that I greatly appreciate what you do when craziness pops up on my watch list. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it all. This is one of the worst ones I've come across (you can see from Special:Log/delete just how bad). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

changing appeals procedure

You appear to have changed the procedure here [36] without discussion. Please revert the changed and discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#changing_appeals_procedure. 10:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Michiel.besseling@sccs.nl

Hello, I'm not sure if this username Michiel.besseling@sccs.nl violates username policy. Thoughts? Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It represents an individual so it's fine, though you might want to let them know about the spam implications. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPAMNAME says very little. http://sccs.nl/ is a personal website titled, THERMOMECHANICS by J.F.Besseling. And the user is writing about the same, Johannes Ferdinand Besseling (User:Michiel.besseling@sccs.nl/sandbox). These warrants username-coi? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

By spam I meant someone getting his email address and emailing him spam. Might also be worth mentioning WP:Autobiography to him. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard Horowitz Composer

Hello Callanecc,

I recently edited the wikipedia page for composer Richard Horowitz. He is a well established film composer who has worked on an endless list of films. All the information I put in is correct and based off information available on his website and IMDB. I noticed the section has since been deleted since I edited the information on his wikipedia. I don't really understand why. I noticed somebody said they couldn't find any information on him which is strange to me. You can see all the information on his website here: http://richardhorowitz.com/ as well as the list o films he's worked on here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003281/

If you simply just google him you'll find countless references unlike what the other user noted: https://www.google.com/search?q=richard+horowitz+composwer&oq=richard+horowitz+composwer&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.5356j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=richard+horowitz+composer&safe=active&spell=1

As for the other user accusing me of being the composer himself, please look at my name and look at me as well. If you look up my name, Jeanette Bonds, you'll see that I am, in fact a different person. Could you please help me with this issue?

Jeanettebonds (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Jeanettebonds

WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG state the notability criteria for Horowitz, looking at that Google search I can't see enough to meet WP:42. If you can find some news articles for example which are about Horowitz or can prove that he meets WP:COMPOSER then I'll take another look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He is listed as composer on IMDB for several film scores including being the film score composer for the film Any Given Sunday by Oliver Stone, and Three Seasons with Harvey Keitel. He was also the score composer for the film Sheltering Sky by Bernardo Bertolucci for which he received a Golden Globe in 1991. You see him listed as film composer directly in the Wiki listing for each film as well as IMDB. You can see several press listings for him, many of which are quite old but original copies of the press articles can be seen here: http://richardhorowitz.com/press/

If you look at all the articles ranging from LA Times, NY Times and so forth.

Here are some other links: golden globe announcement: http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/goldenglobes/1991-golden-globe-award-winners/

UCLA Publication: http://cap.ucla.edu/blog/?p=1009

Film Music Reporter: http://filmmusicreporter.com/2012/09/04/richard-horowitz-scoring-intersection/

Zero Film website: http://www.zero-themovie.com/about-the-film/films-team.html

Paul Bowles website: http://www.paulbowles.org/photosmusic4.html

An interview: http://www.robertphoenix.com/content/revisiting-morroco-magic-majoun-horowitz-and-deyhim/

Here are links to some of the award winning music itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JbcQLy7rQ&list=PLcT-mTYkczLYZFFDO3vATYvD52zsToRsD

I hope this suffices. Let me know if you need anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanettebonds (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeanettebonds I've relisted the discussion, you need to add those sources into the article to support what it says and make the argument about notability in the AFD referring to how Horowitz meets the WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Impersonator?

Do you know anything of Callenecc (talk · contribs) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's the third impersonation account (I've got four accounts, this one and the three on my userpage). But I've blacklisted my username so it should stop now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

re image deletion request

Hello Callanec. I asked that some of my uploaded images be deleted [37] and saw that you had responded to other requests of the day, but not to mine. Is it a lost cause, short of asking the donors themselves to contact OTRS? If so, could you mention that there, and then remove the request? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (I'll watch this page and the FFD page for a while.)

Up to you, you put them up for deletion (under WP:G7) or you can ask the donors to contact OTRS and tag the pages with {{OTRS pending}}. Let me know which way you'd like to go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give G7 a try. Novickas (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I don't see them showing up in any categories - did I use an outdated template or something? Example: File:Vytautas Kavolis 02.jpg. (No great hurry). Novickas (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it worked, they've all been deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! Novickas (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar of appreciation for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For making a good judgement call on the Skyring/HiLo48 ANI. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration appeal

Hi. I decided to withdraw the appeal. Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Kris Crummett

Hello, can you restore page about Kris Crummett? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kris_Crummett i will edit info with proper info links and stuff. Crummett have many billboard 200 albums.

35forMVP (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the page, however you need to ensure that you add WP:Secondary sources which show notability per the general notability guideline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and where i can fill notability point? looks like WP:Music is ok, and his name mentioned a lot on indie music sites/magazines like alternative press, absolutepunk, lambgoat. 35forMVP (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With the content you've added it looks like it meets WP:MUSIC to me. Well done! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

re Discretionary sanctions notification

Thanks sticking that warning onto my talk page and Ronz's. He seems to have stopped playing silly buggers on the talk page and put in something straightforward which is good. Dmcq (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oxfam

Hi Callanecc. Re your decline of my WP:RPP request for Oxfam: as the page history shows, two IPs, not one, have been involved within the past several days, 67.190.105.216 and 68.187.210.197. If it had been only the one, I wouldn't have requested protection. I also don't believe that WP:AIV would be the appropriate noticeboard, since the user's edits are not "obvious vandalism or spam". They haven't gone past 3RR yet, and anyway the edit warring noticeboard is so cumbersome to file reports on that I'd never bother with it unless the situation was dire. The content they're adding may fall into discretionary sanctions territory, but I'd really rather not go there. I figured that with a week or two of semi, they might give up and turn their attention elsewhere, but obviously it's your call. Thanks for considering my request. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I meant WP:ANEW and they don't need to violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring especially if they won't discuss. 67... hasn't edited since the 15th. If any IP makes a similar edit I'll semi it for a week or two. And if you post it to WP:RFPP and link to this could I ask that admin to protect it for me since I'm offline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'm not here much nowadays, but if I see a similar edit I'll do as you suggest. Rivertorch (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Craig Thomson (fraudster)

Please restore this link page, a google search will show he is a convicted fraudster and it is a valid search term - see http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/hsu-wants-400000-more-from-disgraced-former-mp-and-fraudster-craig-thomson/story-fnii5s3y-1226831030367 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-jrv (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the story. But no I'll not recreate the redirect, it's non-neutral and a BLP violation. If people search for that title (which I find extremely unlikely) then Special:Search brings up Craig Thomson (politician). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way, he is a convicted fraudster, the term is in common use, how can it be non-neural ? If you won't recreate it, how do I appeal this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-jrv (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the place to appeal deletions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new Michael Biddle page

Hi, I'm creating a new Michael Biddle page and it warns me to ask you before I make it as a page like it has previously been deleted. I've made it in my sandbox, can you please check it and let me know if it's OK to put up or not? --Tenpastmidnight (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The main concern in the deletion discussion was that Michael Biddle wasn't notable by himself (that is he does inherit notability because of the company he founded). The only evidence of notability in the original article was the awards and, whilst not highly discussed in the AFD there was the suggestion that they were not notable. If you can show me (with sources) that Biddle himself meets the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:BIO then I'll there won't be a problem moving it from your userspace to Michael Biddle. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What?

Where did I attack another editor? show me.67.161.54.23 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"screw off Walter gorlitz" and the most recent one "stop trolling Walter Gorshit". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Kane (wrestler)

Is extra PC time needed? There'd been more reverts. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Help

Could you help me to become a better editor in wikipedia. Ejrusselllim123 (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the sort of area you want to edit in. If you're looking for things to do check out Wikipedia:To-do list. And the best way to learn is to read and accept that you'll get it wrong sometimes but learn and do better. If there is anything specific you need help with I'd be happy to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)