Misplaced Pages

User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:01, 17 February 2015 editCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,478 edits →Am I missing something?: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:59, 19 January 2025 edit undoTarnishedPath (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers17,818 edits →Tony Abbott: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Page and group editnotices ] & ] --> <!-- Page and group editnotices ] & ] -->{{User:Callanecc/Header}}
{{User:Callanecc/Break}}{{User talk:Callanecc/Header}} {{User:Callanecc/Break}}
{{Talk header}}
{{User:Callanecc/Template/Email}}
{{User:Callanecc/Template/Usertalkback}}
{{User:Callanecc/Template/TPS}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Callanecc/Archive index
|mask=User talk:Callanecc/Archive <#>|indexhere=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(5d) | algo = old(32d)
| archive = User talk:Callanecc/Archive %(counter)d | archive = User talk:Callanecc/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 16 | counter = 28
| maxarchivesize = 150K | maxarchivesize = 250K
| minthreadsleft = 3
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} {{search archives|prefix=User talk:Callanecc}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 3
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadsleft = 2
}} }}


== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
== Sanction review ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice-->


==That IP is back again==
As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, , I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, That IP is back edit warring on the ] again and has now decided to . I see they have on the ] page, so I'm not the only one who is struggling with this individual. Someone on the Godley history says the range should be banned, but as they hop IPs to different countries, I'm not sure that's going to be much of a barrier, but who knows. Thanks - ] (])
:I've blocked {{IPrange|213.55.128.0/17}} from editing those two pages for a week for edit warring. I did 36 hours last time so we can keep increasing as needed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::That's great - thanks very much indeed! - ] (]) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


==Happy Adminship Anniversary!==
:It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to ], so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from ] until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
::To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ombox
:::It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On ] he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On ] he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On ] he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits", misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
| name = Happy Adminship
::::] is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
| image = ]
::::OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
| imageright = ]
:::::I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);
::::::I was thinking my original offer for the TBAN (ie just Battle of Chawinda until the original expiry) and 1RR (for the same period of time) for both of you long term 6 months, a year, indef (not sure yet, one of the reasons I asked). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| plainlinks = yes
| text = <big>'''Happy adminship anniversary!'''</big><br />Hi Callanecc! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your ]. Enjoy this special day! ] (]) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


==Io Saturnalia!==
:::::::I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While <s>TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information.</s> There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked, its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of ] for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::}} "TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is ] and will likely get you blocked. There are three on ] and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:Refactored. Thank you for informing. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
::::::::I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently ] approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
{{outdent|::::::::}} I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" |
:I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR ''when'' the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}


== Previously contentious topic blocked user on edit spree ==
*Ok this is what I'll do:
:*I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just ] for the same period of time.
:*I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).
:How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
::Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:*That's better, considering that we have no consensus for rejecting this appeal, neither there is consensus for increasing the scope of article ban. Good luck TopGun! ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
::::This is AE, consensus is not needed. I appealed only to Callanecc, not to you. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Just checking, are you aware this user ], is currently making many edits to the Zionism page? Sorry I don't know how to link a talk page subject specifically, but you left something on their talk page regarding a block from the article. All of their edits are either on Israel, Zionism, or the Palestine-Israel conflict; so I just felt I should bring it to your attention. ] (]) 21:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== Clerk ==
Hello Callanecc, I just now saw that Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers. I'm a bit late. Is requests are still being accepted? I'm interested in volunteering. Best, ''']''' 14:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:No not too late, feel free to submit an application to the mailing list. Regards, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::Submitted. Cheers, ''']''' 11:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jim Carter}} We didn't receive it could you please resend, {{nospam|clerks-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}. Thanks, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Hello Callanecc, I send it but I got a reply from {{nospam|clerks-l-bounces|lists.wikimedia.org}}. In the reply it said: "Your mail to 'Clerks-l' with the subject 'Request for volunteering' Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list. Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision...". What should I do? Should I resend? ''']''' 07:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yeah can you resend please. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Od}} Resend. Please check. I got the same reply again though. ''']''' 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:Yep, got it this time. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::What will be my next step? ''']''' 10:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Sent you an email. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Send you it's reply. ''']''' 14:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


:Hi @], I can't see any issues with DMH's editing to that article at the moment. The previous block was specifically for breaking the ] on the article rather than any other issue. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== guidance re temporal conflict on 3RR thread and AE ==
::Oh I see, I saw that they had a high number of reverted changes to the article recently which is why I brought it up, but looks like those have stayed reverted so you're right it is fine and unrelated to their prior block. Cheers ] (]) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==
Hi Callanecc.
* at 05:22, 10 February 2015 i notified Atsme that I had filed a 3RR thread regarding her edits at Griffin
* at 06:54, 10 February 2015 you recommended to Atsme above that she file an AE case
* at 07:07, 10 February 2015 you imposed DS at Griffin
* at 16:19, 10 February 2015 Atsme filed her AE case.
(if you wants diffs of those, let me know)


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
I am very uncertain how various admin authorities intersect here.
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For taking care of the vandalism ] and ]. Thank you! ] (]) 23:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
|}


:Thanks {{u|JeffSpaceman}}. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I only file 3RR cases when I am confident they are solid, and they are generally acted on swiftly. I have never had one sit as long as this one did, without being touched by an admin. I reckoned it was because of authority issues, with regard to the DS that you imposed just after i filed it - admins seem very loathe to step on each others' toes...or maybe admins at 3RR judged that it was pointless now because of the DS. I don't know. I provided you notice of the 3RR thread and you didn't act either. Then I saw that you had referred Atsme to AE... so I followed suit and I withdrew the 3RR and took it to the AE thread and recommended boomerang.


== Rejected page protection ==
I am asking for procedural guidance here. In your view, should I restore the 3RR thread and strike my addition at AE, or leave the matter of Atsme's edit warring at AE, or something else? If you feel you cannot provide guidance, please let me know that.


Please check the edit history . How am I supposed to do a dispute resolution thing since it's clear vandalism? "war flag" and naval flag has nowhere place in the infobox. Also multiple IP abuse. ] (]) 14:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! ] (]) 00:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


:Pages: ] and ]. ] (]) 14:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jytdog}} I actually don't remember seeing your note about the 3RR report had I seen it I would have actioned it, but I've been very busy the past few days. Regarding what to do now, I'd recommend leaving it at AE but you'd need to include evidence in your statement there (or if the evidence is substantial file a new AE request regarding Atsme so the current one doesn't become too convoluted and so that there's a clear decision). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I see, Thanks. ] (]) 12:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


::Start a discussion on the talk page like you would for any other content dispute and let the other party know it's there (on their talk page). If they then decide not to contribute you deal with it as edit warring. I'd point out that the IP has started a discussion at ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Ignoring the RfC close and the tendentious editing that ensued after the close are what needs your action, Callan, not Jytdog's false 3RR. I may not understand some of the behavior I've seen here, but I sure as hell know it's wrong. I wasn't edit warring as the diffs will prove, and any uninvolved admin who read my comments and actually reviewed the diffs could see it was unactionable. Even more important is the fact that the admin who closed the RfC determined there was fundamental noncompliance with NPOV which to me equates into BLP violations. What took place immediately following the close is what demands administrator action.
*Nyttend corrected the noncompliant passages. He was reverted by Nomo. an action which should have immediately resulted in a block review per ]. He didn't just revert an edit, '''he reverted a BLP violation that was corrected by an admin after closing an RfC.'''
*SRich correctly reverted Nomo's revert,
*Jytdog reverted to the BLP violation - '''cause for review for an immediate block, as with Nomo's revert.'''
*SRich correctly reverted back to policy compliant edit,
*Jytdog reverted him again - '''two reverts and BLP violations.''' The editor who needs a TB and blocking is certainly not me.
*Nyttend PP because of '''edit warring''' after Jytdog's last revert. Nyttend reverted back to his original policy compliant edits. We were all advised that Griffin was under DS, but Jytdog's edit warring took it to a different level because he was reverting to noncompliant edit after an RfC. His AN RfC review showed a consensus that supported the close.
I may be overly trusting and I have certainly tried to be respectful and accommodating to your requests Callan but I'm not stupid. I'm being treated unjustly and unfairly. The events that took place regarding the close and what is happening to me now is an absolute travesty, and demands review by uninvolved administrators. Editors who want to expand a start-class article to GA are not the bad guys so please stop treating me like one, especially in light of the true disruptive behavior that has been ignored. The sensitive nature of a BLP requires administrator action regarding violations BLP core content policy, and is far more important than a falsified 3RR complaint. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:I broadly agree, but sometimes I can't be watching the article so things happen which when I see them happen too late for me to do anything about (eg the events which led up to Nyttend's full protection. There are always going to be something missed, and I'm sure if I asked those on the "other" side they'd say the same thing. For example on a controversial article such as this, could be construed as disruptive as there was no consensus for it, and as you've been told before proposed changes need to be piecemeal and relatively small and proposed on the talk page before being carried out. So this conversation goes both ways, especially since there are different interpretations of how NPOV, RS and BLP apply. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


== EXIENT LIMITED History formerly Game Quest and formed by David Hawkins ==
{{od}}Thank you for your response, Callan. I understand you are extremely busy and I do appreciate all you do for the project. For the record, I want my credibility back and respectfully request a bit more of your time if/when you can make it available. I have always held you in the highest regard, but I feel that I was not treated fairly in this case. I am not faulting you because I understand how time constraints prevent you (and other admins) from seeing the full picture. I just find it disconcerting to be falsely accused and showered with abusive warning templates and innuendos of wrong doing by editors who have not acted in GF, especially when they have no substantive basis for their allegations. In this instance, their actions have a negative effect on my credibility and the way my work is viewed by the GF editors and admins I respect. I've been an editor long enough to know such incidents may come back and bite me in the butt later if I don't clear up the confusion. But to think such accusations have influenced you is even more troubling for me and it appears that is exactly what has happened. For example, I understand your comment to me that "this conversation goes both ways" as it relates to neutrality, but it also helps explain why I feel the need to further clarify my position. I may have misunderstood your intentions but the following examples are what raise question in my mind. You responded to me with an accusatory statement and a diff of my edit saying, "this edit could be construed as disruptive as there was no consensus for it". I want it to be clear that my edit was made after the RfC close which confirmed consensus of fundamental noncompliance of NPOV in a BLP so there actually was consensus. Did you expect me to get consensus from those editors who were defying the RfC consensus and reverting edits by the closing admin and/or adding more fundamentally noncompliant material? There were also lengthy discussions of my proposals on the TP, the diffs for which I included below.
* Feb 4, 2015 - My modified proposal trying to reach a compromise
* Feb 4, 2015 - SRich's suggestions
* Feb 4, 2015 - Specifico's suggestions
* Feb 4, 2015 - Arthur Rubin's suggestions
* Feb 4 2015 - Jytdog wasn't happy with what he thought was "soft-peddling" fringe, (Based on the close, he was actually supporting fundamentally noncompliant material that failed NPOV}. He said my proposal was premature and wanted to wait for the RfC to end. You know the result of that RfC.
* Feb 5 2015 - I wanted to know why I had to go through the "screening process" when other editors were reverting the RfC closer - defying consensus - while I'm still on the TP trying to get along. Double standard?
* Feb 6, 2015 Rich's suggestions on my TP
* Feb 6 2015 - I made some of the changes to my proposal that had been suggested
* Feb 6 2015 - clear and precise explanation to Jytdog about the noncompliance issues, and to Arthur re: Pulitzer Prize winning writer's thoughts on Griffin
What I also found extremely confusing were your responses to me when I brought noncompliant policy issues to your attention. Again, I realize time constraints and the lack of information you had to go on, but even more confusing were your responses to others which indicated early on that you were thinking about taking action against me when I was simply trying to correct the problems.
* <---you assumed consensus was against me and advised me to drop the stick which, with all due respect, the consensus confirmed to be an incorrect assumption
* <---your response to another editor who interrupted my discussion wherein you again wrongly indicated I had done something wrong.


Checkout https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04028014
Meanwhile, Arthur Rubin is editing away at Griffin with '''no consensus''' . Why? Is it because he is on the opposing team and an admin? My edits were reverted, not because they were noncompliant to NPOV as Arthur has alleged with absolutely no substantive basis as usual, but because the opposition just didn't like them. Does the double standard consider it acceptable behavior? Worse yet, contrary to what this project stands for, Jytdog and others have deliberately prevented me from expanding a start-class BLP to GA; i.e. ] because they believe the article is ok as is.


Please do not revert it back the article in the Oxford Mail is and was inaccurate, they attributed all my contributions to Charles Chapman a person whom has not being a part of the EXIENT story since 2011. I would like to keep the history as was written previously or I write the correct history but please do not put back something that is factually incorrect. ] (]) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
As I've indicated all along, beginning on December 10, 2014, there was a fundamental noncompliance of NPOV (BLP violation), which according to BLP policy should have been all that was needed to revert and correct. Instead, I've been attacked for trying to make the article policy compliant. It appears to me that consensus should have been the requirement for those editors who supported the noncompliant material per ]. What is happening at the article now is the exact opposite of what was expected of me. Perhaps you can explain ''why consensus is no longer required now that I've stopped editing Griffin?'' I think the latter speaks volumes regarding the double standard. Sadly, the winner in this case is not the project which I once believed was our priority. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:I've left a further message on your talk page. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Atsme}} I am sorry you are upset about what was stated at the AE. Callanecc suggested that I open I separate AE on you; I didn't do that since it appears that you walked away from the Griffin article shortly after I did and your behavior on that article was no longer an issue to me. {{u|ErikHaugen}} about his comments at AE, as well as Callenecc here, and that show you are unhappy with how BLPs are handled. I don't think you are going to get anyone to really respond to things relevant to AE outside the context of an actual AE. I would rather spend my time working on other things, and the issues are stale now that you have walked away from Griffin, but if you really want to have your behavior addressed head on, and see if you can have your ... how did you say it?... "credibility back"... I will open an AE case concerning your behavior. I don't see how your concerns will be addressed otherwise, and this is also what Callenecc recommended above. Shall i open one? (it's a real question to you; not sarcastic or anything) Your call. ] (]) 20:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

== Question ==

In my user space, is ], linked to by me, and others in the Wifione case. When the case closes, I think I should not keep the page there, per ] ''"The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."''. That gives me a dilemma, because if I blank/U1 CSD it, the links from the case will no longer work. I'm not the only contributor to the page, either. I'm not sure if it should be moved to a case subpage or just blanked with history intact. What do you recommend? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:Given that the ] state that evidence in userspace should not be used I'd suggest having it deleted per CSD U1 would be the best option, it can always be accessed again if needed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::Ok. I didn't realise that wasn't permitted, but I can obviously see now why it isn't. I'll do that. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It is valuable evidence and it is linked several times from the arbitration case. Could it possibly be moved to a subpage of the /Evidence page? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 09:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::You can make a request on the proposed decision talk page and ask the drafting arbs. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Would you be okay with this {{ul|Begoon}}? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Absolutely, Martin. I'm annoyed at myself for putting it in userspace initially. My fault for not being familiar with procedure. I don't like redlinks in arbitration cases at all, but I don't want to get in trouble for my error. If it can be fixed, that's cool. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't one of the drafting arbs, but I absolutely think the page should be preserved somewhere in the case page system. Deleting this makes a significant hole for anyone reading it later. ] 02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm with Courcelles on this one. This is substantial enough and useful to leave. I'm going to restore, move and redirect the userspace page to it for you. -- ] ] 03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. That works. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 13:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Extend PC time? --] (]) 06:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

{{tb|Erpert#Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

==Question==
Er, re '''Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP''', I am not sure what topic you are referring to. If it's ], I did '''not''' violate ] (if you review the later edits which did not replicate the previous ones re Wilson), and I have removed the article from my watchlist as I am not interested in incessant edit warring over trivia. If not Wilson, then I am not sure to which topic you're referring. Please advise. Thanks. ] 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, the last line of the message says "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

:: I understand but I was not sure which topic you were referring to but I figured out that it was the Rebel Wilson article. OK. ] 04:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It was Rebel Wilson yeah. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

==Vandalism==
Hi Callanecc. We talked about a vandal earlier from a protected article that was recently released from protection. As you can see, the vandalism is . If you could advise or take action, awesome. ] (]) 04:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for your assistance. One further request: could you remove this content which is disparaging and inapplicable to this individual? Again, this is a result of reddit users who focus on anti-mormonism coming together to spam the page. (See edits of the users {Villaged, COGDEN, 104.156.100.205}) who contributed to the talk page) Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nicholas_Edward_Alahverdian under the heading "Protected edit request on 9 February 2015." Thanks again. ] (]) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::There's nothing there which would need to be removed or deleted that I can see. It looks like they are good faith discussions regarding the article. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

==Continued IP harassment==
I have sent an email giving a condensed summary (basically just the diffs) of the continued harassment reported earlier. I would be very grateful if you could block some or all of these IPs as you think fit. ~ ] (]) 07:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for blocking. I mentioned a on my Talk page which shows nothing in Revision History. Is this vandalism or a WP message? ~ ] (]) 10:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::See ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ~ ] (]) 10:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

== Heads up ==

I'm taking ARCA off my watchlist, but I'm assuming you'll let me know if there is an outcome that effects me, right? ] (]) 14:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:If you're named as a party (or a motion is proposed which directly affects you) you'll get a message :). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

I now have a better understanding of what AE involves, what NPOV vs Advocacy means to WP, the importance of getting an article right, and where GA and FA actually rate on the overall scale. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

== Valentine Greets!!! ==
{| style="background-color: #FA8072; border: 4px solid #DC143C;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 1px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Valentine Greets!!!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Callanecc, ] is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of ], spread the ] by wishing each other ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.<br />
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, <br>
Happy editing,<br>
--''']''' (]) <span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;font-size: 40%;">]</span> 01:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}


== Problems at David Ross article again == == Protection on Yoon Suk Yeol ==


Since the temporary protection on ] is because of ip users who vandalise, should it become pending changes for the remainder of the duration? Thanks. ](] • ]) 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Andcarr}} is once again ignoring our policies at the ] article. Could you perhaps take a look at the situation, please? - ] (]) 13:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:Has been indef blocked by Bbb23. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, thanks. I'm not sure how they spotted it but I am not surprised at the outcome. Thanks for looking at the situation. - ] (]) 02:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


== About Gurung people ethinicity, history, culture. how is gurung people considered Tibtian. ==
== Help creating a sock puppet investigation ==


how is Gurung people considered Tibtian ethinicity when these people are listed as a indiginious Mountain ethinic group of Nepal in Nepal government. there is no such listing in Tibet or in China government official document about Gurung people. on what basis wiki admin has been changing gurung people status as tibetian people can you give some concret expination to it. ] (]) 15:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc,


== Tech News: 2025-03 ==
I'm trying to open a sockpuppetry investigation with regard to ] and ]. However, I am unable to edit the (despite being able to edit other pages normally). Would you be able to help me out? ] (]) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:People editing without an account can't create pages except talk pages, I've created the base level version so you should be able to now. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


<section begin="technews-2025-W03"/><div class="plainlinks">
== 139.102.0.0/16 ==
Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available.


'''Weekly highlight'''
I noticed you blocked a range belonging to ] due to sockpuppetry, and I was curious if you had considered contacting the institution to deal with the matter as an alternative to blocking the range. The reason I ask is because, although I'm not challenging the merits of the block, I know from experience at ] that universities tend to be great to work with on matters like this. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
* The Single User Login system is being updated over the next few months. This is the system which allows users to fill out the login form on one Wikimedia site and get logged in on all others at the same time. It needs to be updated because of the ways that browsers are increasingly restricting cross-domain cookies. To accommodate these restrictions, login and account creation pages will move to a central domain, but it will still appear to the user as if they are on the originating wiki. The updated code will be enabled this week for users on test wikis. This change is planned to roll out to all users during February and March. See ] for more details and a timeline.
:Can you please explain what this has to do with your comment at ]? The one 139. IP listed there?--] (]) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Apparently at least one sockmaster is abusing the range, but the idea is that the block might not be needed if the university were notified of the abuse and could take action to stop the sockmaster(s). ] <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Obviously ] regarding whether the block was related to that SPI. Re making an abuse report, there isn't really a long history of sockpuppetry here and this is the first block. Also, from memory, there wasn't much collateral on the range which is why I blocked it for so long. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


'''Updates for editors'''
==]==
* On wikis with ] installed, you can now ] to pages in a given WikiProject by using the <code dir=ltr>inproject:</code> keyword. (These wikis: {{int:project-localized-name-arwiki/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-enwiki/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-enwikivoyage/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-frwiki/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-huwiki/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-newiki/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-trwiki/en}}{{int:comma-separator/en}}{{int:project-localized-name-zhwiki/en}})
It seems default sock categories (sockpuppet of XXX) have disappeared after the recent update of this template. For example, I see no category links in ]. ] (]) 05:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
* One new wiki has been created: a {{int:project-localized-name-group-wikipedia}} in ] (])
:Thanks MS, fixed now. Missed a pipe. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
* ] View all {{formatnum:35}} community-submitted {{PLURAL:35|task|tasks}} that were ]. For example, there was a bug with updating a user's edit-count after making a rollback edit, which is now fixed.
==SPI==
I have sent you an email about the SPI discussed with Dougweller, but only to ask you a few questions about filling in the form. ~ ] (]) 10:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Have now emailed you a draft. ~ ] (]) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


'''Updates for technical contributors'''
== ] ==
* ] Wikimedia REST API users, such as bot operators and tool maintainers, may be affected by ongoing upgrades. Starting the week of January 13, we will begin rerouting ] from RESTbase to the newer MediaWiki REST API endpoints for all wiki projects. This change was previously available on testwiki and should not affect existing functionality, but active users of the impacted endpoints may raise issues directly to the ] in Phabricator if they arise.
* Toolforge tool maintainers can now share their feedback on Toolforge UI, an initiative to provide a web platform that allows creating and managing Toolforge tools through a graphic interface, in addition to existing command-line workflows. This project aims to streamline active maintainers’ tasks, as well as make registration and deployment processes more accessible for new tool creators. The initiative is still at a very early stage, and the Cloud Services team is in the process of collecting feedback from the Toolforge community to help shape the solution to their needs. ].
* ] For tool and library developers who use the OAuth system: The identity endpoint used for ] and ] returned a JSON object with an integer in its <code>sub</code> field, which was incorrect (the field must always be a string). This has been fixed; the fix will be deployed to Wikimedia wikis on the week of January 13.
* Many wikis currently use ] to render custom footnote markers in Parsoid output. Starting January 20 these rules will be disabled, but the developers ask you to ''not'' clean up your <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">]</bdi> until February 20 to avoid issues during the migration. Your wikis might experience some small changes to footnote markers in Visual Editor and when using experimental Parsoid read mode, but if there are changes these are expected to bring the rendering in line with the legacy parser output.


'''Meetings and events'''
<section begin="technews-2015-W08"/><div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks">
* The next meeting in the series of ] will take place on ] and ]. The topic of this call is defining the priorities in tool investment for Commons. Contributors from all wikis, especially users who are maintaining tools for Commons, are welcome to attend.
Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available.


''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ].''
'''Software changes this week'''
</div><section end="technews-2025-W03"/>
* The ] of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 11. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from February 17. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 18 (]).
* On Wednesday your ] will be shown if you don't have a user page on a wiki.
* You can now change the order of categories in VisualEditor using drag-and-drop.
* In VisualEditor, you now need to make a change before you can "Apply Changes" to citations and templates.
* The way the cursor moves in VisualEditor is changing. Your browser now handles the cursor directly. Most of you will see no change. In right-to-left text, the cursor now moves in a 'visible' rather than 'logical' way. This is like other sites but you may be surprised at first.​


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">]</bdi> 01:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Meetings'''
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=28048614 -->
* The VisualEditor Team had their first public bug triage meeting on February 11. They will post the results on ].
* You can join the second weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on . See ].
* You can join a meeting with the developers of the Content Translation tool. It will be on .


== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
'''Future changes'''
* You can comment on a proposal about ].


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ].''
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->
</div></div> <section end="technews-2015-W08"/> 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=11280654 -->


== 1RR Question == == Block evasion ==


Hi! On 23 December you blocked {{User links|2605:8D80:681:0:0:0:0:0/48}} for one month. I want to let you know that today an editor on {{User links|2605:8D80:684:A125:31BC:E7BB:362A:A022}} started making similar edits on the same articles as the blocked editor. Based on the similarity of their edits and the close match to the blocked IPv6 range, I am sure that this is block evasion by the same editor. ] (]) 21:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
As a new editor I am asking for clarification of 1RR. Guy, an administrator, did 2 revert edits that changed lead paragraphs. . He made the reverts, ignoring consensus. Is action on your part required?--] (]) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:As they are in a series it only counts as one 'revert', have a look at the pink box at ]. I have warned him for editing against consensus. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


== Am I missing something? == == ] ==


Back in 2014 you applied 1RR to the article due to edit warring that was occurring at the time. Abbott has been out of politics for a while now and I don't think the restriction is needed anymore. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand that there is a 1RR/week on ]. SRich made on Feb 10 that seems pretty non-controversial, but which is technically a revert since it re-added the word "lecturer". The edit summary was "My one edit this week. To match description in the infobox." The next week, on Feb 16, he makes with the edit summary "My one edit for the week -- remove redundant/duplicate information". It appeared to be doing just that, merging redundant material in two consecutive sections. Both edits seemed uncontroversial, neither was reverted by anyone, neither was part of an edit war, and each was only technically a revert as far as I can tell. He was editing constructively, participating on the talk page, going above and beyond trying to follow the rules (limiting himself to one ''edit'' per week instead of one ''revert'' per week, and basically doing everything we hope editors will do. What am I missing? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:I was considering this as well. However there is quite a bit of controversy about the first sentence (I've lost count of the number of talk page discussions about it), and the second one relates to this edit war so is controversial. I agree that they have to follow the rules, however they were asked about it on their talk page (including to consider reverting) and didn't. Given that they've commented that they'll follow ONLYREVERT, which has been one of the major problems on the article, I'll unblock in a sec. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:59, 19 January 2025

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This is Callanecc's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: Index, 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, 28Auto-archiving period: 32 days 
If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please read User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me.
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If it was a warning or other notice please ping me so I know to look.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages is appreciated.

Nomination for deletion of Template:ACC terms

Template:ACC terms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

That IP is back again

Hi Callanecc, That IP is back edit warring on the List of Maggie Smith performances again and has now decided to label my edits as vandalism and call me a troll in the process. I see they have also edit warred and labelled as vandalism on the Janey Godley page, so I'm not the only one who is struggling with this individual. Someone on the Godley history says the range should be banned, but as they hop IPs to different countries, I'm not sure that's going to be much of a barrier, but who knows. Thanks - SchroCat (talk)

I've blocked 213.55.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from editing those two pages for a week for edit warring. I did 36 hours last time so we can keep increasing as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Misplaced Pages globe and sysop mopHappy adminship anniversary!
Hi Callanecc! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC) 		Party popper emoji

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Previously contentious topic blocked user on edit spree

Just checking, are you aware this user User talk:DMH223344, is currently making many edits to the Zionism page? Sorry I don't know how to link a talk page subject specifically, but you left something on their talk page regarding a block from the article. All of their edits are either on Israel, Zionism, or the Palestine-Israel conflict; so I just felt I should bring it to your attention. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Terrainman, I can't see any issues with DMH's editing to that article at the moment. The previous block was specifically for breaking the one-revert restriction on the article rather than any other issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see, I saw that they had a high number of reverted changes to the article recently which is why I brought it up, but looks like those have stayed reverted so you're right it is fine and unrelated to their prior block. Cheers 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking care of the vandalism here and here. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks JeffSpaceman. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rejected page protection

Please check the edit history . How am I supposed to do a dispute resolution thing since it's clear vandalism? "war flag" and naval flag has nowhere place in the infobox. Also multiple IP abuse. Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages: Flags of the Ottoman Empire and flag of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Start a discussion on the talk page like you would for any other content dispute and let the other party know it's there (on their talk page). If they then decide not to contribute you deal with it as edit warring. I'd point out that the IP has started a discussion at Talk:Flags of the Ottoman Empire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

EXIENT LIMITED History formerly Game Quest and formed by David Hawkins

Checkout https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04028014

Please do not revert it back the article in the Oxford Mail is and was inaccurate, they attributed all my contributions to Charles Chapman a person whom has not being a part of the EXIENT story since 2011. I would like to keep the history as was written previously or I write the correct history but please do not put back something that is factually incorrect. 212.56.159.202 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've left a further message on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Protection on Yoon Suk Yeol

Since the temporary protection on Yoon Suk Yeol is because of ip users who vandalise, should it become pending changes for the remainder of the duration? Thanks. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

About Gurung people ethinicity, history, culture. how is gurung people considered Tibtian.

how is Gurung people considered Tibtian ethinicity when these people are listed as a indiginious Mountain ethinic group of Nepal in Nepal government. there is no such listing in Tibet or in China government official document about Gurung people. on what basis wiki admin has been changing gurung people status as tibetian people can you give some concret expination to it. 2400:1A00:B050:9DB1:81C3:21B3:6CE6:98F9 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-03

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

Weekly highlight

  • The Single User Login system is being updated over the next few months. This is the system which allows users to fill out the login form on one Wikimedia site and get logged in on all others at the same time. It needs to be updated because of the ways that browsers are increasingly restricting cross-domain cookies. To accommodate these restrictions, login and account creation pages will move to a central domain, but it will still appear to the user as if they are on the originating wiki. The updated code will be enabled this week for users on test wikis. This change is planned to roll out to all users during February and March. See the SUL3 project page for more details and a timeline.

Updates for editors

  • On wikis with PageAssessments installed, you can now filter search results to pages in a given WikiProject by using the inproject: keyword. (These wikis: Arabic Misplaced Pages, English Misplaced Pages, English Wikivoyage, French Misplaced Pages, Hungarian Misplaced Pages, Nepali Misplaced Pages, Turkish Misplaced Pages, Chinese Misplaced Pages)
  • One new wiki has been created: a Misplaced Pages in Tigre (w:tig:)
  • Recurrent item View all 35 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, there was a bug with updating a user's edit-count after making a rollback edit, which is now fixed.

Updates for technical contributors

  • Advanced item Wikimedia REST API users, such as bot operators and tool maintainers, may be affected by ongoing upgrades. Starting the week of January 13, we will begin rerouting some page content endpoints from RESTbase to the newer MediaWiki REST API endpoints for all wiki projects. This change was previously available on testwiki and should not affect existing functionality, but active users of the impacted endpoints may raise issues directly to the MediaWiki Interfaces Team in Phabricator if they arise.
  • Toolforge tool maintainers can now share their feedback on Toolforge UI, an initiative to provide a web platform that allows creating and managing Toolforge tools through a graphic interface, in addition to existing command-line workflows. This project aims to streamline active maintainers’ tasks, as well as make registration and deployment processes more accessible for new tool creators. The initiative is still at a very early stage, and the Cloud Services team is in the process of collecting feedback from the Toolforge community to help shape the solution to their needs. Read more and share your thoughts about Toolforge UI.
  • Advanced item For tool and library developers who use the OAuth system: The identity endpoint used for OAuth 1 and OAuth 2 returned a JSON object with an integer in its sub field, which was incorrect (the field must always be a string). This has been fixed; the fix will be deployed to Wikimedia wikis on the week of January 13.
  • Many wikis currently use Cite CSS to render custom footnote markers in Parsoid output. Starting January 20 these rules will be disabled, but the developers ask you to not clean up your MediaWiki:Common.css until February 20 to avoid issues during the migration. Your wikis might experience some small changes to footnote markers in Visual Editor and when using experimental Parsoid read mode, but if there are changes these are expected to bring the rendering in line with the legacy parser output.

Meetings and events

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

MediaWiki message delivery 01:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi! On 23 December you blocked 2605:8D80:681:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one month. I want to let you know that today an editor on 2605:8D80:684:A125:31BC:E7BB:362A:A022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started making similar edits on the same articles as the blocked editor. Based on the similarity of their edits and the close match to the blocked IPv6 range, I am sure that this is block evasion by the same editor. CodeTalker (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Tony Abbott

Back in 2014 you applied 1RR to the article due to edit warring that was occurring at the time. Abbott has been out of politics for a while now and I don't think the restriction is needed anymore. TarnishedPath 02:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions Add topic