![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
In response to this warning I need to let you know that an admin used the same word with me, not once, but twice (see the edit summary) here. Since an admin had used the phrase with me, I thought that meant it was ok for me to use it. Cla68 ( talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
at this. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I will not appeal the sanction, since I have grown tired of the subject. However, I would be very grateful if you could explain to me why I am the only one who is sanctioned. I am the first editor who deleted the mention of "Putin's birthday". I did so because I believed it to be a clear violation of BLP which, as such, could be deleted on sight by anyone. Lute88 undid my revision repeatedly with no explanation and did not discuss the matter with me on the talk page. Instead, his position was defended, very energetically, by My very best wishes. When, trying to explain my removal, I said that, in a court of law, the innuendo would be considered libel, he replied "Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. One can be blocked for doing this." However, it should have been clear to anyone that I was not making any kind of threat, just stating the law. If you take a closer look, you will notice that I stopped removing the BLP violation the moment My very best wishes entered the discussion and I never edited the page since then. Finally, an admin, Drmies, agreed with me and removed the BLP violation. Only then did the disgruntled Lute88 enter the discussion, attacking me with "Why do I smell this? - http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/ --Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" When told by Drmies that it was not funny, he replied with " No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant...--Lute88 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)". I asked him to "take back immediately your slanderous accusations", which he refused to do. I note that you did not sanction him for it, while you sanction me for incivility and personal attacks for "apart from editors with a long history of anti-Russian POV-pushing". This sentence attacks no one in particular, since no one is named. You will note too that, after Lute88 insulted me, I stopped making posts on the talk page until a few hours ago. The increasingly aggressive tone used by Volunteer Marek and his obstinate edit warring decided me to support BMK, hence my edits. Now, I fail to see what you find more uncivil in my edits than the accusation of being a Putin's stooge, on the Kremlin's payroll. For the moment, forgive me for saying so, but it looks like double standards. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 04:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
Concerns the "Shilha language" page. I am still working on that. Today (17 September 2015) I took out a longish piece of text from a section. I intend to re-use that text (my own, by the way) in another section which I'll add later. Your reversal obliterated a lot of other edits I made today, as well as improvements to layout. I think this interference was uncalled for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahulandiy ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
I just wanted to touch base with you over the recent decision to page protect the article in question. A few days ago I was a previously uninvolved editor who got informed via bots of an RfC and tried to bring a level head to the discussion on the talk page. The main issue in contention is the article's extensive focus on a living person already acquitted of the crime of murder. The recent edits that made it look like edit warring are an edit by User:Collect (with consensus from the BLP notice board) [1] to remove this material, its reversion by me [2], a reversion of MYSELF by me [3], and then a reversion of Collect's material by another user [4].
Let me begin by apologizing and stating I am an extremely novice editor and after reading the relevant passages of BLP and reviewing the article's talk page it became apparent to me that I was in the wrong and I self-reverted voluntarily and posted an apology on the noticeboard [5]. The original edit by Collect was then reverted by an editor who, having reviewed the page history and talk page, has continued to push for this material's inclusion. It was at this point you stepped in as it had appeared an edit war had occurred even though all that had REALLY occurred was my own incompetence. I wanted to write you here to personally apologize for my blunder and to convey my hope that my errors would not hinder the process of editing this article properly to get it into accordance with WP:BLP. I'm so sorry again, I have a lot still to learn about all this, and thanks for all that you do to keep Wikipedia running well! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I would like to summarize my experience with this article. I tried to resolve the issues via moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The primary actors here are a single-purpose account, Dewanifacts, and a POV-pusher, Lane99. In Wikipedia, we are normally wary of single-purpose accounts, but, in this case, the SPA is mostly right. His agenda is to push a POV that is consistent with the policy on biographies of living persons, while Lane99 has an agenda that is contrary to that policy. To summarize, Ms. Dewani was murdered in South Africa on her honeymoon with Mr. Dewani. The murder may have been a murder-for-hire designed to look like a random botched carjacking, or a random botched carjacking in which the villains confessed to murder-for-hire. The latter is the theory that is consistent with judicial proceedings so far. Three people were convicted of the murder, and one of them then died of cancer. Mr. Dewani, the only person who has been suggested as the arranger of the murder-for-hire, was extradited to South Africa and tried and acquitted because the case against him fell apart as being nothing but the testimony of criminals. Lane99's agenda is to push the finding of murder for hire, which was not explicitly set aside in Mr. Dewani's acquittal, but was essentially set aside because it was based on lies. The agenda of Dewanifacts is to set the record straight. Dewanifacts is an SPA, but being an SPA doesn't always mean being wrong. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
More specifically, protecting the article won't help, in my opinion, because Lane99 won't listen. My recommendation is that Lane99 be topic-banned from the article for several months to permit the article to be cleaned up. This can be done under ArbCom discretionary sanctions for BLPs. Lane99 has already been notified. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I will add that, just because Collect has been sanctioned for his BLP violations doesn't mean that he is always wrong on BLPs. In this case he is right. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Please, could you have a look at the article TRT World. In my opinion, it is a, not even thinly disguised, advertisement for a media outlet and not a serious article. I dare not take any action myself, lest I fall foul of some Turkish interest group. Please, keep me informed about the action you take. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see this. I apologize in advance if I stepped on your toes. -- NeilN talk to me 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
|
I love you so much. Bets18 ( talk) 09:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
User:D4iNa4 is recently returned from an SPI block and started edit warring and removal of contents about Pakistan victory 1 and a Picture 2 from [Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts] with a really blatent reasons, for which he was warned for Edit Warring by a user on his talk page 3,since then he started warring logged out 4 and oversighted the details.Now can you Please tell what can i do about this Duck. HIAS ( talk) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This editor is becoming very difficult to deal with. The latest is a clear failure to follow the 1rr rule but we also have misleading edit summaries. His initial change was reverted (by Mabuska as would be expected). I made a couple of modifications to make it more neutral. Gob Lofa then reverted to his original edit again. A simple trawl around his talk page comments indicate an editor with interaction problems. For example here. I've been through a whole bunch of articles he has edited and he makes many minor changes, then sneaks in the odd removal of 'terrorism' or similar in the hope no one notices it. Having checked the edits he makes there are some improvements but not many. I can formally report this if you prefer, but as you had already taken action I thought I would raise it here first. ---- Snowded TALK 16:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Navbox. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That's new. Statement headers have been flowering (or non-"clean") undisturbed for years — sometimes they're a repository of humour (not this time, admittedly). And mine was a comment or request, not a "statement". What's the purpose of regimenting these headers? To make arbitration sound even more formal and legalistic, and make the untidy people who comment at least look like they're standing at attention and looking straight ahead? There's enough of that and to spare already, in my opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
Can you hop into #wikipedia-en-accounts for a minute please? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we're making friends.... [21]. Let me know if you have any questions or advice. Thanks. Darknipples ( talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
btw, just want to formally say I have no objection to you clerking my appeal. You are mentioned a handful of times in my appeal with related interactions (the civility warning, and spi clerk denial) , but i think it would be somewhat tough to find an arb/clerk I haven't dealt with significantly. I don't foresee any issues being raised by anyone in this regard, but if they are, here's my signoff. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callan, if you have a spare half an hour or so to read through the thread, the AE report on VictorD7 could really do with another pair of uninvolved eyes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
When you issued this topic ban, did you mean that the user still can edit other pages about the same, as he just did here? Please note that he mentioned you in the edit summary of the diff, but I do not have an idea what he was talking about ... My very best wishes ( talk) 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
TBAN vio |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Callanecc. There's a discussion at WP:AN regarding a rangeblock you performed. You may be interested in commenting. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blocking of T Mobil IP's for a long time (several months)?????? Thanks, -- Diannaa ( talk) 18:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Mind if I add other subpages? Different subpages of my user space have been vandalized on multiple occasions - I'd rather not go chasing down which one got vandalized every time, especially when WP doesn't seem to explicitly notify me when subpages of my user space or talk space have been modified. Seems to be an issue with this SPI case. Ping on reply. -- JustBerry ( talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Providing Page Links Per Request
User:JustBerry/Barnstars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/BetaWikipediaAdministrator (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/Block Log (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/EFM (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/sandbox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/MTD (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-- JustBerry ( talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at this from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RMS52. User's usage of "Anonymous" and other similar phrases seems to be a clear indication of continued socking. However, the other IPs the user provides may just be a distraction. Please investigate. -- JustBerry ( talk) 13:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_don.27t_close_too_early it may be ready to close. NE Ent 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
nyttend's ANI post about a range block at the Wikiconference NE Ent 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Smoore95GAGA has violated their agreement to not violate the three-revert rule at Revival and Purpose. I would warn them about it but, I'd be accused of personally attacking them once more, so I'm bringing it directly to you, who served their last block. They've reverted at that page times within the past 24-hours. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The interesting question I request you ask the committee is whether they are willing to enforce the "This ban can only be contested by application to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or Arbitration committee, " provision -- in other words take ownership of the ban. NE Ent 23:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-done close. BMK ( talk) 03:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Should User talk:Reguyla/Archive 1 be protected as well? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Re. this, I just noticed this edit which is on a page that mentions the tea party. I am leaning towards ignoring it unless there are subsequent edits in violation of the topic ban, but am wondering at what point you suggest I file another enforcement request. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callanec, @ Sandstein:
I presented to the ANI:"The root of the problem here is Keysanger" a case you are well informed about the history and would like to know your opinion and your possible solutions. -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi.
I've been asked here to intervene with this user because of disruptive editing. I'm going to block him for a few days to get his attention and counsel him to, once the block expires, discuss intended potentially controversial edits with other users of the pages involved before making them and reach a consensus about the changes. In looking at this, I saw your warning to this user at User talk:Hanam190552#Sockpuppetry, and thought that a WP:SPI might be indicated. Can you let me know the details (links to diffs, IDs of the blocked accounts) behind your warning.
As I'm not well experienced in disputes I'd be thankful for any suggestions you think might be helpful, either by talk page exchange or by email.
Thanks & Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc,
I don't see how
Pacific Rim Defender and
Century Plant Guy are sockpuppets of
McAusten! I honestly looked at their contributions are don't see any editing that gives then away!
69.72.247.240 (
talk)
07:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for having faith that I will change. I assure you if I feel like I am right with a situation, I will talk to you first about it to get another opinion. Smoore95GAGA ( talk) 13:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I put in reviews for Confident by Demi Lovato, and someone went and removed any mixed or negative ones. Clearly they are just doing it to make it seem like the album only received positive reviews. Would it be ok if I reverted that? Smoore95GAGA ( talk) 13:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that Ratioimply is another sock of Caradoc29105. Note the very similar user page (with a fake battle template), and the edits to Libyan Civil War. Thanks, GAB Hello! 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, I don't want to bother you or anything, but can you please check my last post in [26] and tell me what you think/give your opinion? Thanks and regards. ( N0n3up ( talk) 06:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC))
I felt that N0n3up's treatment of me in regards to the topic at hand was relevant to other people whom they wished to engage with the topic at hand. Some might say I poisoned the well by sharing his accusation, I would counter that N0n3up did it first by making the accusation. I stand by my comments, and also by my further pledged silence on the matter. -- Golbez ( talk) 07:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You protected Murder of Anni Dewani on Saturday, but it appears you set it to expire immediately. In any event, it's not currently protected... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you have banned me from a topic (Spiro Koleka), but I see no justification for it. Can you please elaborate on your recent decision? I don't think I deserve to be banned for standing up against greek nationalist propaganda and racist comments. Burridheut ( talk) 08:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please sign [43] per WP:SIGNHAT. NE Ent 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think our friend, Smoore95GAGA, is back in full bloom action. Check out the investigation and the new account's edits. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Another thing I worked on recently... I branched off of your User:Callanecc/ACCRIGHT and made User:MusikAnimal/ACC terms. I sort of dumbed it down since these newbie event coordinators are often unfamiliar with policy and probably won't read all of WP:U. The main thing I think is for them not to bypass the spoofing and blacklist, and to essentially use common sense when choosing usernames. What do you think? If you are okay with this modification I thought I'd also move this to the template namespace and merge the history of your template so the attribution is there. Either way I realize I need to update mine to say it was mostly taken from you :) — MusikAnimal talk 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter
![]() September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
$wgContentNamespaces
.
[49]Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There was a request for unprotection on Boko Haram. I've removed it for now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Unprotection is requested here. This article has been semi - protected since 6 December 2013. 31.54.205.170 ( talk) 11:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
[50] I thought it was helpful, and it's also my one and only comment on the case; I've decided against making any more. Are you enjoying being a clerk? Have you considered blocking Bishzilla for threatening grievous bodily harm to an arbitrator? Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC).
At WP:AE you've recommended a 0RR for some participants. In your mind, does that prevent any existing text from being removed from the article even as part of a sentence revision? The ancient meaning of "revert" was an edit that restored a previous version of the article. When people defined the 0RR that could be what they were thinking. But in practice, it's not so easy to draw the line. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that you have been mentioned at WP:AN by @ Softlavender:, I would kindly request you to read this message once again that I had posted with regards to lack of abuse of multiple accounts, in the sense that multiple accounts were never used in same discussion or pages.( tool results) And also that there was as no block evasion after the block.
I agree that these things could've been clarified on talk page right after the block, but I really didn't knew if "indefinite" block could be removed, it seemed like an "infinite" block. I made these clarifications about never socking on my talk page only after I got to know off-wiki that all blocks can be removed, that's why it took me more than a year.
But as far as we know, if there is no abuse of multiple account, they are just not blocked, they are tagged as alternative instead.
Maybe you can also alter my block log that there was no abuse of sock puppetry? Because some users seem to be making blocks as point for justifying things that are often irrelevant to others block log. Including this recent comment [51] where a user is treating your block as fixated for as one year punishment, even though it was just due to my absence. D4iNa4 ( talk) 09:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm hardly your best friend, and it's not as if I think you're the perfect candidate, but considering how extremely weak the field is right now, I think you should consider running. (And who could refuse after such an effusive recommendation?) BMK ( talk) 08:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, can you check this edit out? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why you locked the article. You have a user violating 1rr on basis of rather weak argument.They are willing to let the Gaza listing stand but only if their unsourced original research is allowed. They lack a valid reason to actually remove the material. They didn't challenge it on the basis of it being unsourced and it is sourced. They challenged it on the basis of original research and simply not liking it. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to have the way I've been pushed off Wikipedia reviewed. Where would be the best venue for a public review? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc: Do you figure this can be raised for the ARBCOM committee to explicitly clarify that 'poetic militancy' (on either side of the conflict) is inappropriate for the purpose of the project? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc: I've prepared the following text. Before I consider posting it to Wikipedia talk:User pages, I'd appreciate your input: if you see it as making the issue clear enough without 'lecturing' or making it a personal issue with anyone on the project.
Thank you in advance, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou
My thoughts:
- Suggestion A: Not without merit, is a simple footnote. Whether this is the community's preferred version and whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. It is always possible that even an extended version would sometimes falter.
- Suggestion B: To cut down on the 'circumvention factor'. Perhaps too much, but weighing brevity vs. results, cutting down on room for interpretation where real-world conflicts and political agendas are involved. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter. [66] Thoughts? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Race & Intelligence is under discretionary sanctions broadly construed etc. Would this apply to disruptive and uncivil editing around race/ethnicity - but unrelated to its intersection with physical/mental characteristics? The wording is a bit ambiguous in the final decision, it says 'the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed' - I read that as it requires race/ethnicity in *combination* with their impact on human abilities to qualify, however 'broadly construed' has been in the past taken to include individual parts of active sanctions. (Essentially there is an uncivil editor arguing over the use of race or ethnicity, and while being able to warn on R&I sanctions would make it a lot easier, I dont think it applies, but wanted to get a second opinion, because if not, due to the lack of any enforcement of basic civility, its going to be difficult dealing with them.) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't see anything so far that indicates they're trying to edit through the Great Firewall. Looks entirely probable though that they are. I'm willing to AGF on this one. Elockid Message me 14:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
He is now reverting my edits arbitrarily only to get me into a war. Sorry to saddle you with this complaint. Pardon the lack of signature. Juan Riley ( talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi C, FYI: User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Re_N0n3up_comments Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 08:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Best of luck, my friend. → Call me Hahc 21 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Evelyn Krieger. I am Byron Krieger's daughter and was updating some of the sources and references because the links were dead. Please restore the changes that I made. He just passed away and various news outlets may be writing up obituaries for him and I want them to have the most up to date information available. 66.31.158.152 ( talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you.
Minor 4th 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed you via mediawiki on an ArbCom election matter, since I've reached my limit for today's emailing. Tony (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have launched a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. I imagine that you will be returned. I wish you good luck in this. However, I wanted to ask you about your prior proposal at WP:CDS. As you may have noticed, in the case of recently launched CDS such as WP:GS/ECIG, enforcement has simply not occurred. I believe this is because the appropriate enforcement mechanisms simply are not in place. Your proposal would go a long way toward remedying this situation, and would hopefully nip situations like the failed electronic cigarettes case from occurring. If enforcement of the community sanctions had occurred, there would've been not need for a case. The case, trapped in a limbo for months, has not worked. The most recent successful example of GS enforcement was WP:GS/GG, which worked largely because of the establishment of WP:GS/GG/E. Have you any desire to move forward with the proposal? Increasing the efficacy of community DS will go a long way toward reducing the load of the Committee, remedying disputes, and reducing the kind of limbo that often exists following the establishment of CDS or other community general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Callanecc for vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiggyFacey ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
200.122.128.152 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) likely sock of
91.233.116.79 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) per edits at
Talk:Helena (empress). SPI open but IP is making repeated personal attacks against myself and other editors - could you block if available?
samtar
{t}
11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hi Callanecc. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. -- John ( talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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" ( /info/en/?search=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)
For what reason was a sanctioned, in relevance to the Syrian Civil War and ISIS? Prohibited Area ( talk) 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
( ←) 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)
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: [67] [68] 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, [69] 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)
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)
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, [71] and [72]. Onefortyone ( talk) 01:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
In response to this warning I need to let you know that an admin used the same word with me, not once, but twice (see the edit summary) here. Since an admin had used the phrase with me, I thought that meant it was ok for me to use it. Cla68 ( talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
at this. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I will not appeal the sanction, since I have grown tired of the subject. However, I would be very grateful if you could explain to me why I am the only one who is sanctioned. I am the first editor who deleted the mention of "Putin's birthday". I did so because I believed it to be a clear violation of BLP which, as such, could be deleted on sight by anyone. Lute88 undid my revision repeatedly with no explanation and did not discuss the matter with me on the talk page. Instead, his position was defended, very energetically, by My very best wishes. When, trying to explain my removal, I said that, in a court of law, the innuendo would be considered libel, he replied "Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. One can be blocked for doing this." However, it should have been clear to anyone that I was not making any kind of threat, just stating the law. If you take a closer look, you will notice that I stopped removing the BLP violation the moment My very best wishes entered the discussion and I never edited the page since then. Finally, an admin, Drmies, agreed with me and removed the BLP violation. Only then did the disgruntled Lute88 enter the discussion, attacking me with "Why do I smell this? - http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/ --Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" When told by Drmies that it was not funny, he replied with " No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant...--Lute88 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)". I asked him to "take back immediately your slanderous accusations", which he refused to do. I note that you did not sanction him for it, while you sanction me for incivility and personal attacks for "apart from editors with a long history of anti-Russian POV-pushing". This sentence attacks no one in particular, since no one is named. You will note too that, after Lute88 insulted me, I stopped making posts on the talk page until a few hours ago. The increasingly aggressive tone used by Volunteer Marek and his obstinate edit warring decided me to support BMK, hence my edits. Now, I fail to see what you find more uncivil in my edits than the accusation of being a Putin's stooge, on the Kremlin's payroll. For the moment, forgive me for saying so, but it looks like double standards. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 04:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
Concerns the "Shilha language" page. I am still working on that. Today (17 September 2015) I took out a longish piece of text from a section. I intend to re-use that text (my own, by the way) in another section which I'll add later. Your reversal obliterated a lot of other edits I made today, as well as improvements to layout. I think this interference was uncalled for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahulandiy ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
I just wanted to touch base with you over the recent decision to page protect the article in question. A few days ago I was a previously uninvolved editor who got informed via bots of an RfC and tried to bring a level head to the discussion on the talk page. The main issue in contention is the article's extensive focus on a living person already acquitted of the crime of murder. The recent edits that made it look like edit warring are an edit by User:Collect (with consensus from the BLP notice board) [1] to remove this material, its reversion by me [2], a reversion of MYSELF by me [3], and then a reversion of Collect's material by another user [4].
Let me begin by apologizing and stating I am an extremely novice editor and after reading the relevant passages of BLP and reviewing the article's talk page it became apparent to me that I was in the wrong and I self-reverted voluntarily and posted an apology on the noticeboard [5]. The original edit by Collect was then reverted by an editor who, having reviewed the page history and talk page, has continued to push for this material's inclusion. It was at this point you stepped in as it had appeared an edit war had occurred even though all that had REALLY occurred was my own incompetence. I wanted to write you here to personally apologize for my blunder and to convey my hope that my errors would not hinder the process of editing this article properly to get it into accordance with WP:BLP. I'm so sorry again, I have a lot still to learn about all this, and thanks for all that you do to keep Wikipedia running well! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I would like to summarize my experience with this article. I tried to resolve the issues via moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The primary actors here are a single-purpose account, Dewanifacts, and a POV-pusher, Lane99. In Wikipedia, we are normally wary of single-purpose accounts, but, in this case, the SPA is mostly right. His agenda is to push a POV that is consistent with the policy on biographies of living persons, while Lane99 has an agenda that is contrary to that policy. To summarize, Ms. Dewani was murdered in South Africa on her honeymoon with Mr. Dewani. The murder may have been a murder-for-hire designed to look like a random botched carjacking, or a random botched carjacking in which the villains confessed to murder-for-hire. The latter is the theory that is consistent with judicial proceedings so far. Three people were convicted of the murder, and one of them then died of cancer. Mr. Dewani, the only person who has been suggested as the arranger of the murder-for-hire, was extradited to South Africa and tried and acquitted because the case against him fell apart as being nothing but the testimony of criminals. Lane99's agenda is to push the finding of murder for hire, which was not explicitly set aside in Mr. Dewani's acquittal, but was essentially set aside because it was based on lies. The agenda of Dewanifacts is to set the record straight. Dewanifacts is an SPA, but being an SPA doesn't always mean being wrong. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
More specifically, protecting the article won't help, in my opinion, because Lane99 won't listen. My recommendation is that Lane99 be topic-banned from the article for several months to permit the article to be cleaned up. This can be done under ArbCom discretionary sanctions for BLPs. Lane99 has already been notified. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I will add that, just because Collect has been sanctioned for his BLP violations doesn't mean that he is always wrong on BLPs. In this case he is right. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Please, could you have a look at the article TRT World. In my opinion, it is a, not even thinly disguised, advertisement for a media outlet and not a serious article. I dare not take any action myself, lest I fall foul of some Turkish interest group. Please, keep me informed about the action you take. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see this. I apologize in advance if I stepped on your toes. -- NeilN talk to me 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
|
I love you so much. Bets18 ( talk) 09:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
User:D4iNa4 is recently returned from an SPI block and started edit warring and removal of contents about Pakistan victory 1 and a Picture 2 from [Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts] with a really blatent reasons, for which he was warned for Edit Warring by a user on his talk page 3,since then he started warring logged out 4 and oversighted the details.Now can you Please tell what can i do about this Duck. HIAS ( talk) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This editor is becoming very difficult to deal with. The latest is a clear failure to follow the 1rr rule but we also have misleading edit summaries. His initial change was reverted (by Mabuska as would be expected). I made a couple of modifications to make it more neutral. Gob Lofa then reverted to his original edit again. A simple trawl around his talk page comments indicate an editor with interaction problems. For example here. I've been through a whole bunch of articles he has edited and he makes many minor changes, then sneaks in the odd removal of 'terrorism' or similar in the hope no one notices it. Having checked the edits he makes there are some improvements but not many. I can formally report this if you prefer, but as you had already taken action I thought I would raise it here first. ---- Snowded TALK 16:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Navbox. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That's new. Statement headers have been flowering (or non-"clean") undisturbed for years — sometimes they're a repository of humour (not this time, admittedly). And mine was a comment or request, not a "statement". What's the purpose of regimenting these headers? To make arbitration sound even more formal and legalistic, and make the untidy people who comment at least look like they're standing at attention and looking straight ahead? There's enough of that and to spare already, in my opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
Can you hop into #wikipedia-en-accounts for a minute please? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we're making friends.... [21]. Let me know if you have any questions or advice. Thanks. Darknipples ( talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
btw, just want to formally say I have no objection to you clerking my appeal. You are mentioned a handful of times in my appeal with related interactions (the civility warning, and spi clerk denial) , but i think it would be somewhat tough to find an arb/clerk I haven't dealt with significantly. I don't foresee any issues being raised by anyone in this regard, but if they are, here's my signoff. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callan, if you have a spare half an hour or so to read through the thread, the AE report on VictorD7 could really do with another pair of uninvolved eyes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
When you issued this topic ban, did you mean that the user still can edit other pages about the same, as he just did here? Please note that he mentioned you in the edit summary of the diff, but I do not have an idea what he was talking about ... My very best wishes ( talk) 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
TBAN vio |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Callanecc. There's a discussion at WP:AN regarding a rangeblock you performed. You may be interested in commenting. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blocking of T Mobil IP's for a long time (several months)?????? Thanks, -- Diannaa ( talk) 18:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Mind if I add other subpages? Different subpages of my user space have been vandalized on multiple occasions - I'd rather not go chasing down which one got vandalized every time, especially when WP doesn't seem to explicitly notify me when subpages of my user space or talk space have been modified. Seems to be an issue with this SPI case. Ping on reply. -- JustBerry ( talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Providing Page Links Per Request
User:JustBerry/Barnstars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/BetaWikipediaAdministrator (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/Block Log (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/EFM (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/sandbox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User:JustBerry/MTD (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-- JustBerry ( talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at this from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RMS52. User's usage of "Anonymous" and other similar phrases seems to be a clear indication of continued socking. However, the other IPs the user provides may just be a distraction. Please investigate. -- JustBerry ( talk) 13:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_don.27t_close_too_early it may be ready to close. NE Ent 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
nyttend's ANI post about a range block at the Wikiconference NE Ent 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Smoore95GAGA has violated their agreement to not violate the three-revert rule at Revival and Purpose. I would warn them about it but, I'd be accused of personally attacking them once more, so I'm bringing it directly to you, who served their last block. They've reverted at that page times within the past 24-hours. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The interesting question I request you ask the committee is whether they are willing to enforce the "This ban can only be contested by application to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or Arbitration committee, " provision -- in other words take ownership of the ban. NE Ent 23:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-done close. BMK ( talk) 03:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Should User talk:Reguyla/Archive 1 be protected as well? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Re. this, I just noticed this edit which is on a page that mentions the tea party. I am leaning towards ignoring it unless there are subsequent edits in violation of the topic ban, but am wondering at what point you suggest I file another enforcement request. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callanec, @ Sandstein:
I presented to the ANI:"The root of the problem here is Keysanger" a case you are well informed about the history and would like to know your opinion and your possible solutions. -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi.
I've been asked here to intervene with this user because of disruptive editing. I'm going to block him for a few days to get his attention and counsel him to, once the block expires, discuss intended potentially controversial edits with other users of the pages involved before making them and reach a consensus about the changes. In looking at this, I saw your warning to this user at User talk:Hanam190552#Sockpuppetry, and thought that a WP:SPI might be indicated. Can you let me know the details (links to diffs, IDs of the blocked accounts) behind your warning.
As I'm not well experienced in disputes I'd be thankful for any suggestions you think might be helpful, either by talk page exchange or by email.
Thanks & Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc,
I don't see how
Pacific Rim Defender and
Century Plant Guy are sockpuppets of
McAusten! I honestly looked at their contributions are don't see any editing that gives then away!
69.72.247.240 (
talk)
07:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for having faith that I will change. I assure you if I feel like I am right with a situation, I will talk to you first about it to get another opinion. Smoore95GAGA ( talk) 13:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I put in reviews for Confident by Demi Lovato, and someone went and removed any mixed or negative ones. Clearly they are just doing it to make it seem like the album only received positive reviews. Would it be ok if I reverted that? Smoore95GAGA ( talk) 13:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that Ratioimply is another sock of Caradoc29105. Note the very similar user page (with a fake battle template), and the edits to Libyan Civil War. Thanks, GAB Hello! 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, I don't want to bother you or anything, but can you please check my last post in [26] and tell me what you think/give your opinion? Thanks and regards. ( N0n3up ( talk) 06:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC))
I felt that N0n3up's treatment of me in regards to the topic at hand was relevant to other people whom they wished to engage with the topic at hand. Some might say I poisoned the well by sharing his accusation, I would counter that N0n3up did it first by making the accusation. I stand by my comments, and also by my further pledged silence on the matter. -- Golbez ( talk) 07:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You protected Murder of Anni Dewani on Saturday, but it appears you set it to expire immediately. In any event, it's not currently protected... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you have banned me from a topic (Spiro Koleka), but I see no justification for it. Can you please elaborate on your recent decision? I don't think I deserve to be banned for standing up against greek nationalist propaganda and racist comments. Burridheut ( talk) 08:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please sign [43] per WP:SIGNHAT. NE Ent 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think our friend, Smoore95GAGA, is back in full bloom action. Check out the investigation and the new account's edits. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Another thing I worked on recently... I branched off of your User:Callanecc/ACCRIGHT and made User:MusikAnimal/ACC terms. I sort of dumbed it down since these newbie event coordinators are often unfamiliar with policy and probably won't read all of WP:U. The main thing I think is for them not to bypass the spoofing and blacklist, and to essentially use common sense when choosing usernames. What do you think? If you are okay with this modification I thought I'd also move this to the template namespace and merge the history of your template so the attribution is there. Either way I realize I need to update mine to say it was mostly taken from you :) — MusikAnimal talk 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter
![]() September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
$wgContentNamespaces
.
[49]Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There was a request for unprotection on Boko Haram. I've removed it for now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Unprotection is requested here. This article has been semi - protected since 6 December 2013. 31.54.205.170 ( talk) 11:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
[50] I thought it was helpful, and it's also my one and only comment on the case; I've decided against making any more. Are you enjoying being a clerk? Have you considered blocking Bishzilla for threatening grievous bodily harm to an arbitrator? Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC).
At WP:AE you've recommended a 0RR for some participants. In your mind, does that prevent any existing text from being removed from the article even as part of a sentence revision? The ancient meaning of "revert" was an edit that restored a previous version of the article. When people defined the 0RR that could be what they were thinking. But in practice, it's not so easy to draw the line. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that you have been mentioned at WP:AN by @ Softlavender:, I would kindly request you to read this message once again that I had posted with regards to lack of abuse of multiple accounts, in the sense that multiple accounts were never used in same discussion or pages.( tool results) And also that there was as no block evasion after the block.
I agree that these things could've been clarified on talk page right after the block, but I really didn't knew if "indefinite" block could be removed, it seemed like an "infinite" block. I made these clarifications about never socking on my talk page only after I got to know off-wiki that all blocks can be removed, that's why it took me more than a year.
But as far as we know, if there is no abuse of multiple account, they are just not blocked, they are tagged as alternative instead.
Maybe you can also alter my block log that there was no abuse of sock puppetry? Because some users seem to be making blocks as point for justifying things that are often irrelevant to others block log. Including this recent comment [51] where a user is treating your block as fixated for as one year punishment, even though it was just due to my absence. D4iNa4 ( talk) 09:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm hardly your best friend, and it's not as if I think you're the perfect candidate, but considering how extremely weak the field is right now, I think you should consider running. (And who could refuse after such an effusive recommendation?) BMK ( talk) 08:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, can you check this edit out? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why you locked the article. You have a user violating 1rr on basis of rather weak argument.They are willing to let the Gaza listing stand but only if their unsourced original research is allowed. They lack a valid reason to actually remove the material. They didn't challenge it on the basis of it being unsourced and it is sourced. They challenged it on the basis of original research and simply not liking it. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to have the way I've been pushed off Wikipedia reviewed. Where would be the best venue for a public review? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc: Do you figure this can be raised for the ARBCOM committee to explicitly clarify that 'poetic militancy' (on either side of the conflict) is inappropriate for the purpose of the project? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc: I've prepared the following text. Before I consider posting it to Wikipedia talk:User pages, I'd appreciate your input: if you see it as making the issue clear enough without 'lecturing' or making it a personal issue with anyone on the project.
Thank you in advance, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou
My thoughts:
- Suggestion A: Not without merit, is a simple footnote. Whether this is the community's preferred version and whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. It is always possible that even an extended version would sometimes falter.
- Suggestion B: To cut down on the 'circumvention factor'. Perhaps too much, but weighing brevity vs. results, cutting down on room for interpretation where real-world conflicts and political agendas are involved. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter. [66] Thoughts? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Race & Intelligence is under discretionary sanctions broadly construed etc. Would this apply to disruptive and uncivil editing around race/ethnicity - but unrelated to its intersection with physical/mental characteristics? The wording is a bit ambiguous in the final decision, it says 'the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed' - I read that as it requires race/ethnicity in *combination* with their impact on human abilities to qualify, however 'broadly construed' has been in the past taken to include individual parts of active sanctions. (Essentially there is an uncivil editor arguing over the use of race or ethnicity, and while being able to warn on R&I sanctions would make it a lot easier, I dont think it applies, but wanted to get a second opinion, because if not, due to the lack of any enforcement of basic civility, its going to be difficult dealing with them.) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't see anything so far that indicates they're trying to edit through the Great Firewall. Looks entirely probable though that they are. I'm willing to AGF on this one. Elockid Message me 14:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
He is now reverting my edits arbitrarily only to get me into a war. Sorry to saddle you with this complaint. Pardon the lack of signature. Juan Riley ( talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi C, FYI: User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Re_N0n3up_comments Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 08:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Best of luck, my friend. → Call me Hahc 21 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Evelyn Krieger. I am Byron Krieger's daughter and was updating some of the sources and references because the links were dead. Please restore the changes that I made. He just passed away and various news outlets may be writing up obituaries for him and I want them to have the most up to date information available. 66.31.158.152 ( talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you.
Minor 4th 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed you via mediawiki on an ArbCom election matter, since I've reached my limit for today's emailing. Tony (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have launched a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. I imagine that you will be returned. I wish you good luck in this. However, I wanted to ask you about your prior proposal at WP:CDS. As you may have noticed, in the case of recently launched CDS such as WP:GS/ECIG, enforcement has simply not occurred. I believe this is because the appropriate enforcement mechanisms simply are not in place. Your proposal would go a long way toward remedying this situation, and would hopefully nip situations like the failed electronic cigarettes case from occurring. If enforcement of the community sanctions had occurred, there would've been not need for a case. The case, trapped in a limbo for months, has not worked. The most recent successful example of GS enforcement was WP:GS/GG, which worked largely because of the establishment of WP:GS/GG/E. Have you any desire to move forward with the proposal? Increasing the efficacy of community DS will go a long way toward reducing the load of the Committee, remedying disputes, and reducing the kind of limbo that often exists following the establishment of CDS or other community general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Callanecc for vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiggyFacey ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
200.122.128.152 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) likely sock of
91.233.116.79 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) per edits at
Talk:Helena (empress). SPI open but IP is making repeated personal attacks against myself and other editors - could you block if available?
samtar
{t}
11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hi Callanecc. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. -- John ( talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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" ( /info/en/?search=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)
For what reason was a sanctioned, in relevance to the Syrian Civil War and ISIS? Prohibited Area ( talk) 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
( ←) 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)
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: [67] [68] 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, [69] 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)
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)
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, [71] and [72]. Onefortyone ( talk) 01:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)