User talk:Callanecc

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

If you are still up for doing some testing, just add the following to your common.js:

setTimeout(function() {
	importScript('User:MusikAnimal/Gadget-twinklespeedy.js');
}, 500);

I know testing something that deletes stuff is a little sketch, but I'm quite confident you won't run into any erratic behaviour or delete something by accident. I anticipate only potential Twinkle interface issues, but we'll see :) Thank you for your assistance! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! The only thing I'd suggest (and only if possible) would be that the deletion reason specifies which criterion the additional information is related to. For example, at Test (Callanecc) its not clear what Rationale: Created for testing purposes refers to (but that's fairly minor). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. This may be fixable, by you, by me, or any confirmed user who knows how to edit templates... That's because Twinkle now uses the template-generated deletion summaries! So this one is coming from {{db-multiple}}. I gave it a lot of thought and concluded going by the templates was best, as now we can maintain the deletion summaries in one place, in addition to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. Otherwise it'd be a lot of crazy logic to get the multi-rationale to look right, but as you're seeing here, the template doesn't quite do it right either. I still think it's probably fixable, but I'm not the best with those parser functions, so going to leave it someone who is. Going to wait for the code review from TTO before deploying this. Thanks for the help!

By the way... the next big thing I was going to bring up probably at WP:AN was about functionality to issue both a tag to the user and delete the page. This is simply so they can be informed as to why their page got deleted, saving you the time of doing that if you were planning on it. The only problem is those speedy deletion notices say something like your page was inappropriate and may be deleted... click here to contest. Obviously that doesn't work because we've already deleted it. So I guess we need to work on allowing a |deleted=yes parameter to the templates that will change the wording to the past-tense, but still offer a friendly-ish message, or more stern message, depending on the rationale. Does that sound like something worthwhile? — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does! Probably worth getting consensus before making changes to the template. I reckon it'd almost be worth creating a new template for an already done deletion given that the information needed to 'contest' is completely different. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hey, a usability question... by default Twinkle pops up the prompt to edit the deletion summary after hitting submit. You can change this (see "Allow editing of deletion summary when deleting under these criteria" in WP:TW/PREF), however I was wondering if we wanted to disable it by default. For me, the idea here is to make things quick, and usually you're going to just delete under a criteria and not change the default summary. Maybe I could add a checkbox "Allow editing of deletion summary on submit"? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like it popping up (I actually thought it was disabled by default and I enabled it), however now that most criteria which need to have additional information have an input box appear to allow that when the criteria is selected I think you probably could disable it by default. You would however need to let people know before you do it so that they aren't caught off guard when they hit the 'go' button. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you protected the page, and I saw your edit summary, and I just want you to now that the edit was not done by me. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Out of interest why did you want to let me know, especially since you've only edited the talk page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because I'm in middle of changing my username so I might be blocked, like now. and also, if you saw an IP editing I was worried that you, or someone else would then instantly TBAN me without asking me if it was me or someone else. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this IP is Yossiea? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one was. But I changed my name and was locked out of my account. Yossiea ^(talk) 06:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I understand. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the talk page. I feel that I am being talked down to, not being given the benefit of AGF and I am told that my comment at the military project was no good, my postings are partisan, etc. I am trying hard to AGF and all that, and I am no trying to get into content and I am trying to match the list contents with what the lead says and I feel that what I am getting directed towards me is not fair. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please take a look again. He is not AGF. He is violating WP:OWN, and he has reverted my edit even though I have included sources. Furthermore, he claims there was a consensus,yet there was no consensus. If you look at the archive, there were a few mentions of Tibet in the archive and no consensus has been reached and in fact the LAST entry ever was he himself asking to discuss inclusion of Tibet, so where is the consensus? Then, he seems to own the page, when others, not even me, had a problem with including Palestine as a state, not a territory, prior to their self declaring independence, etc. he has it seems a habit of seeming that it's his page and he has scared away many editors from that page who disagree with him, rav papa, fran9, best wishes and many others. and now because he reverted my edit, the article is again stuck the way he wanted it, even though there was no consensus and my edit had sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As a general matter I find it distasteful when editors target a specific admin to solve their problems instead of taking the matter to ANI or another appropriate central location. But if this matter needs to escalate then it needs to escalate. AGF is not a suicide pact and there is no reason to AGF here. If you are wanting to handle this, I'm not sure that you are, would you like to have the discussion here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stalking me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)

Commenting on a discussion you started about me is somehow stalking you?

Callanecc, I just came to mention that this has been moved over to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll leave it to be sorted out there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing is happening. He is continuing to revert, not discussing, I'm not a wikilawyer, I'm asking to take a look at the talk page, look at all the editors he's chased away from editing. There's a reason there's a real anti-Israel bent on the articles, nobody wants to deal with the constant wikilawyering. If I now edit the page, he's going to report me and I'll be banned again, so I won't edit, and he wins again. If you look at the ANI, others have pointed out that he had no consensus on other items. In the most recent example, he reverted my disputed tag and he claimed it's for Egypt, yet on the talk page I put it in for EJ, Gaza, and the GH. He does not own the page and as an admin you should do something about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the article for two weeks. Both of you need to stop editing the article and focus on the talk page (one thing at a time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are we doing here? Hedging our bets? There's an ANI discussion, there's this here, there's the 3 other admins that have been contacted. Looks a whole lot like WP:FORUMSHOP.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really old and this has to stop. You locked the page for two week? Great that should stop their activism. But this right here has to stop, The forum shopping and the canvassing. An ANI and (including you) 4 admins[1][2][3]. Two of these also stand as a canvass. There's trying to shop it to DRN[4] while there's an active RFC, which he failed to notify his chosen participants. There's the canvassing of editors, [5] this one a user that took part in a discussion over a year ago. This has lead to a merge proposal. There's is also the canvassing that took place before his ban as I noted at the ARE. I have not actively sought to get them banned, while I certainly have had the grounds. Instead I discussed their last ban with them. Explained the reasons I saw for it. Explained what they could do to get it overturned. I'm not out to get them as they suggest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now responded to the false claims made by Excelse, whose attitude, especially his report for probation violations, reminds me of another user. See also the reliable sources I have cited on the related talk pages, for instance, [6] and [7]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page I have now cited dozens of reliable sources supporting the view that Elvis died on the toilet. However, user Excelse doesn't accept my sources. He claims:

"As usual, it remains that these are not reliable sources and they have only represented a medical examiner's observation, who didn't actually confirmed his theory, but rather considered it as a "possibility" or "plausibility", it doesn't means that we should be taking it as a fact that he died on toilet, when he didn't." See [8].

I also do not understand EdJohnson’s statement here. Doesn’t he check the many sources I have provided on the talk pages and does he really accept the false and unsupported claims made by Excelse? See also my reply here. So what should be done? Onefortyone (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to show good faith, I have now intensified the discussion on Talk:Graceland, now accepting the additional sources Excelse has provided. However, the sources seem to contradict each other. Perhaps you or another user can help to find the most appropriate wording for the questioned paragraph there. Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to follow dispute resolution, I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. However, most Wikipedians do not seem to be interested in these topics. Just an additional question. As I have been warned, shouldn't my opponent Excelse also be warned or even be placed on probation because of his sockpuppetry, edit warring, false claims and gaming the system? To my mind, his edits were more disruptive than mine, as he and his sockpuppets have only blindly removed content from Wikipedia articles - content that was part of the said articles for several years. Onefortyone (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the protection log, recent disruptive editing and popularity of the articles, i requested indefinite semi-protection of these articles. I am not aware of any rules, that if any administrator semi-protects a page for one year, another administrator can't override the decision. I feel they needs indefinite semi-protection. Rocky Mountains, Mummy, Pyramid. These are very popular chapters in school geography, history books. Other than Mummy and Pyramid is mentioned in movies, novels and TV shows.--Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Kid, I find many of your indefinite requests excessive. There should be heavy and persistent vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I came here as Callanecc protected Daniel which had less protection log than above mentioned pages. Samasara protected Fossil fuel giving reason that it's highly visible page. All these pages were requested by me. When and which particular day there wil be regular vandalism, can't be predicted. I make an assumption whether any particular page will face repeated vandalism or not. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Kid, every admin is going to use their own judgement when deciding protection types and protection lengths. No admin is going to unilaterally override the judgement of others. If that were to occur, I could easily say I don't like Callanecc's indefinite semi-protection and reduce it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callanecc. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. --John (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it got sorted out, in context I think your actions were appropriate (especially that you asked for feedback on AN). You could have tried a post on ANI to get some more admin eyes but that's into NOTBURO territory. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure parts of this Red Russian Cocktail entry is made up and derogatory to Russians. It states that in Soviet Russia the cocktail is often made with boiled cow blood. Does that sound remotely plausible to you? Why specify "Soviet Russia"? Is it to parallel the Yakov Smirnoff joke, 'In Soviet Russia, (noun) (verb) you!'? Hence my edit to draw attention to this absurdity. If you're going to delete my absurd contribution, you should delete this entire ludicrous entry. I am not Russian, but I find this highly offensive in stereotyping Russians or the perceived bleakness of life in a communist country. I have lived in communist, red China. I was born there. We are not all peasants who envy the lifestyle of the West. Some of us are proud of our culture and political ideals.

There is in fact a Chinese dish made with boiled pigs blood often served at dim sum, which you can find even in Chinese restaurants in the West, although rarely eaten by non-Chinese. My parents eat this all the time. So I know for a fact that when blood is boiled, it curdles into the consistency of something like semi-hard tofu. You cannot boil cow blood, or any blood for that matter, and drink it in a cocktail. I can't say with 100% certainty, but it seems to reason that part of this entry is apocryphal, added entirely with malicious intent to put down another culture. My comment was meant to draw attention to this absurdity. The fact that my satire was labelled "vandalism" but the real "vandalism" was left in place belies Western-centric assumptions made on your part. That's the real crime here.

2602:306:CC59:5690:C05:221B:FDBC:B21D (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I've removed it and added some references. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no my edit wasn't a test or anything. I really really do not like seeing the word "homosexual" used in reference to gay people because of it's history as a term used to pathologize gay people and treat us as diseased and mentally disordered (plus the medical abuse that comes with it being treated as a disorder). It's a word that is hurtful to me and a lot of other gay people. Yes, it's just a small semantic change, but to a lot of gay people it means a lot There's really no reason to refer to a gay or lesbian person as "homosexual" when the words gay and lesbian exist and are preferred by most people. I probably put the source in the wrong place but the one I did list (http://www.glaad.org/reference/style) lists the editorial guidelines of the Associated Press and the New York Times for language pertaining to LGBT people. This source is actually used on Wikipedia's own article on "Terminology of Homosexuality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality) which discusses how the term is considered derogatory so it should fit Wikipedia's standards.

At any rate it's just a simple semantic change but one that really does make a big difference so I would appreciate it if you retained it, especially given that it doesn't affect any of the content that you've worked on for the article :]

(And sorry if I've made any mistakes, I don't have any experience editing nor do I have much interest in doing a lot of it - I find the formatting too intimidating! One word is all I have enough confidence to touch without being scared I'll throw the whole article out of whack haha) Leesandeul (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leesandeul, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for explaining your reasoning! :) I can't see a problem with you making those changes but can I suggest you might like to post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies which will put you in contact with a group of editors who might be able to give you hand or give you some guidance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason was a sanctioned, in relevance to the Syrian Civil War and ISIS?Prohibited Area (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prohibited Area you weren't sanctioned the message I left on your talk page was just informative so that you know about the situation. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Callanecc, I need your advice. A few months ago you closed an AE report about four users with no action, but told me here that you'd take action yourself if there were further problems on the article. There haven't been any more problems on that particular article (race and genetics), but one of the four users reported in that thread is causing a similar problem on another article covered by the same arbitration case, and I'd like advice on how to proceed now.

Here are the edits in question: [9] [10] There are two problems with these edits. One is his apparent indifference to how they misrepresent the viewpoint of the paragraph's source, and the other is (in the second edit summary) his unsubstantiated accusation of block evasion. He previously made this accusation against me at ANI, [11] and his report was closed with a directive for him to not continue making the accusation without any evidence.

About a month after you closed the AE thread, this user was also edit warring on the article's talk page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I edit warred too, because I wasn't aware at the time that the three-revert rule applies to talk pages, but TheRedPenOfDoom has received enough warnings for edit warring over the years that he must be aware of where this policy does or doesn't apply.

I think this issue is past the point where it can be resolved by dispute resolution. It's a user conduct problem, and one that resurfaces every few months. What is the solution in this situation? Is it necessary for me to make an AE report? I've never made one before, so I'd rather not have to do that if there's any other solution. 43.228.158.64 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 43.228.158.64, non-autoconfirmed editors aren't actually allowed to file an AE report so you wouldn't be able to do that yourself, and in this case the only two diffs you have which are recent are the two to IQ and Global Inequality. The first edit seems to be fairly in line with the requirements of the manual of style and while TheRedPenOfDoom could have done better in explaining that in the edit summary there's not much more too that (the bit about it being a lit review seems to be semantic rather than adding important information). The edit summary on the second one is incivil (if not a blatant personal attack) and as they've previously been warned you might have some evidence which would be considered, but without more TRPoD would probably just be told to knock it off which is what I'll tell them do: please don't do it again RedPen, your judgement is usually right with this sort of thing, but you need to back it up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that I'm not supposed to make an AE report. In that case, what recourse do I have if he continues accusing me of block evasion without ever presenting any evidence? 43.228.158.10 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not using a webhost is a good first step. You can post on ANI with evidence, but if you're using an open proxy or webhost it will likely be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather unhelpful. Nyttend gave him that warning in the context of me connecting to the internet the same way that I'm currently doing. (The nature of my internet connection has been public knowledge ever since Bbb23 mentioned it at AE. [12]) Am I to understand that if TheRedPenOfDoom continues doing the same thing in the same context for which he was warned, there is nothing I can really do about it? 103.46.143.25 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, you can report it to ANI with evidence of recent disruption (as well as showing a pattern of the same behaviour). Alternatively take it to an admin on their talk page with the same (evidence wise) and the reason you went to them personally rather than to a noticeboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#8.26.246.224. This hit was caused by what you tried to do in this edit filter change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]