![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there: I saw that you recently closed a WP:AE request against HughD without taking action. He is continuing to edit the Watchdog.org article, both in article space and on the talk page. The article says that "Watchdog.org represented the 'largest media investment to date' for Charles and David Koch" as well as "the Franklin Center [Watchdog.org's parent organization] has its origins in the Sam Adams Alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes free-market Tea Party-style citizen activism." HughD has recently opened up an RFC on the talk page relating to the "degree of partisanship" of Watchdog.org's content. Given his topic ban on tea party and Koch articles, I'm wondering if you consider his most recent participation on that article to be in violation of his topic ban, and if so, what steps should be taken. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. I was not notified of this discussion. May I offer a perspective?
Some editors were disappointed that my topic ban was not American Politics, and will not let it go. Some editors were disappointed at the disposition of the recent AE request, and will not let it go. For some editors noticeboard filings are easier than the heavy lifting of collaborating on content.
Policy is clear, please see WP:TBAN, the fourth bullet: coverage of a banned topic in an article does not "infect" the whole article and bring it in to scope, just that part of the article, emphasis in the original. The stated purpose of our topic ban policy is to allow a conscientious topic banned editor to continue to contribute to our project, not to allow editors a method to use notice board filings to pick and choose who they want to collaborate with.
I beg temporary, local leave to address the dubious Koch-Watchdog connection here on our AE clerk's talk page since it was raised in attacking me here. Thank you.
In 2013, the Kochs were rumored to be looking at the Tribune company newspapers, a deal valued at some $600M. On that occasion, the Columbia Journalism Review reposted an earlier report on Franklin and Watchdog, and prefaced it with several paragraphs of editorial commentary, which teaser fancifully, tongue-in-cheek referred to an alleged Koch -> Donors Trust -> Franklin -> Watchdog funding stream as an "investment."
Watchdog.org is not a company, it is a set of websites built by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which is a non-profit charity. Not only are the Kochs not investors in The Franklin Center, the Franklin Center has no "investors". In fact it is illegal to invest in the Franklin Center.
On 10 July 2013 one of our colleagues attempted to add a Koch connection to Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and Safehaven86 deleted it within minutes, with an edit summary of "Remove WP:SYNTH", with no effort to collaborate, salvage or repair. This exclusion persisted, until, after the consensus that Watchdog.org was out of scope developed at the AE noticeboard, suddenly, the editor who filed the failing AE request for enforcement added the source back, in a failed, blatant, pathetic hail mary attempt to salvage a failing pointed, game-ridden, sad, pathetic, harassing AE request. I doubt our project's arbiters may want to endorse a strategy of filing requests for topic ban enforcements first, and then editing the subject article to bring it within scope as necessary later; and I doubt our arbiters may want to endorse a strategy of cleansing our project's articles of content deemed unflattering, while maintaining an undocumented understanding that a connection sufficient for topic ban enforcement exists; but if any editor thinks so, a new filing might be appropriate.
Please note there is no evidence of disruptive editing and no evidence of a topic ban violation as one would look for before additional sanctions; this is a pure content dispute, regarding the neutrality of our project's article Watchdog.org with respect to reliable sources. Involved editors are kindly requested to return to article talk in good faith and make their best policy- and guideline-based cases for their preferred edits, in collaboration with the editors they find there. No one should feel threatened by a request for comment. A request for comment is how reasonable Wikipedia editors address a local consensus which may be at odds with our pillars, our policies, or our guidelines. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what one administrator thinks. a consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE correctly applied WP:TBAN and concluded that my edits to Watchdog.org are out of scope of a Koch/Tea Party topic ban. Are not administrators bound by policy and consensus just like everybody else? Hugh ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
GAB
Hello! is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best of luck in 2016,
GAB Hello! 15:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have started an enforcement request regarding a warning/sanction that you logged as an administrator [7] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!
Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 01:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
-- Steverci ( talk) 04:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc, isn't Steverci TBAN'ed on all things concerning Armenia? Jaqeli 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note that the vandalism that I predicted within one week of the article in question coming of a year long full protection expiring occured within the predicted week. The indefinite full protection that I asked for was finally granted. Hasteur ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 24:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! ~~--
Tenebrae (
talk)
I wish that you'll come back soon. 115.164.176.6 ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to tell me, because I see that you have checkuser jurisdiction, how can I be unblocked. Remove the block from my account may enforce only checkuser Commission, not ordinary administrators.
I would like to remind you that my only real account Parkirovskieng, and he is infinitely blocked due to harmful use sockpuppets.
I promise you and arbitration checkuser Commission which should by forwarding this message from me, I know why I was blocked and I would never use at all sockpuppet but only a real account Parkirovskieng. More importantly I will never vandalize Wikipedia, because now I know the rules. While I used sockpuppet, I was not so familiar with the rules of conduct on Wikipedia but I'm well aware of what you can do and what must not.
I request you to notify checkuser Commission that all sock puppets accounts Parkirovskieng will never be used, but more importantly will not vandalize Wikipedia. The only account that I use is Parkirovskieng.
I'd even let you know that the account Parkirovskieng blocked just because I was with a false account deleted a comment another user. There was no bad intention but ordinary inattention. That is why I requested that we checkuser Commission to take as a mitigating factor if approved unblock my account. It's all easily verifiable and you can check if you do not at all lie already talking a fact.
If you unblock my account, I have nothing against that all further activities account follow them because I can guarantee one hundred percent that nothing more damaging to Wikipedia will not do. I'll be exemplary user. It does not hurt to inform Checkuser arbitration commission that my Unblock Ticket Request System was rejected on the grounds that only after six months of blocking my accounts can be unblocked. For me it is ambiguity whether, and how, after those six months that we remove the block and what to do to make me unblocked. I really do not understand why so long I should wait.
It occurs to me that if I ever will be unblocked, but now I address directly with volunteers Checkuser status that only can I unblock with arbitration. So we wrote the account it that only you do it in my case. That's why I wanted to read carefully this my plea and I hope we give a "second chance" or unblock my account. And you know that we're all volunteers here and understand my reasonable request. For me it is a punishment and unfair to wait six months as blocked and after that everything is uncertain whether I will unblock or block may extend to one year. For me it was a penalty.
I repeat that I will not ever one hundred percent use any sockpuppet my account Parkirovskieng, but only Parkirovskieng as a true and honest account. I know the rules and I will never do damage Wikipedia.
If I had not been familiar with the rules and now I am free I can unblock. I know you must not delete the comments from other people and that it is vandalism. I appeal strongly hope that you will like the competent Checkuser arbitration commission take into consideration this my remark and permanently unblock my account. 109.121.50.177 ( talk) 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in what the chances are that if you now send the request to be unblocked. Can you give me to help with other administrators, and just so you know I forgot gmail of Parkirovskieng account. Is has a genuine gmail from my account Parkirovskieng or can be made new for communication with the Unblock Ticket Request System. 109.121.50.177 ( talk) 02:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I sent a very thorough request to unblock my account. We are asking you to influence the decision the arbitration to be unblocked. Really you'd ask you to give me "a new chance". Parkirovskieng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.50.177 ( talk) 14:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I was not sure who to talk to in regards to this, I've seen three emails to Arb Com and Doug Weller. I am innocent of this accusation and therefore must have this resolved. I've have not been followed up and I was wondering what the status and outcome of this is. Particularly who the accuser is. Valoem talk contrib 18:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Destiny Leo ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You just said that "proxying is not against policy" – Well, sure, not as such. But proxying for a harasser is against policy. Because the moment you reinstate the harasser's posting, "taking responsibility" for it, you are yourself the harasser. "Taking responsibility" means you are prepared to be judged as if you yourself were the author of the offending posting. The moment TRM restored that posting, he had made himself accessory to the same offense as the IP troll himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Enough with the claims of "no competence" and "lack of brain" and "proxying for a sockpuppet". Little wonder people react so negatively towards you FPAS, you may feel harassed, but your bad faith towards other is astonishing. The Rambling Man ( talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc could you look at this (plus related reverts & restores & editsums); I like to know if FPAS acted appropriately or not: User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Final warning (Thank you.) IHTS ( talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For what it is worth when I saw the edit it was abundantly clear it was harassment. The first hint was that it was spammed on several user pages, the second hint was the content. HighInBC 04:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently requested admin HighInBC to stay off my Talk. (I made the request recently at his Talk, it is hard to believe he forgot the request so quickly.) He posted to my Talk today, and an IP responded to the post, and now as a result the overly aggressive admin Future Perfect at Sunrise has locked my Talk from IPs. (That hardly seems equitable. I recently aided an IP posting to my Talk re correcting info in a chess-related article. And is there any way to "semi-protect" HighInBC from posting again, who ignored my request to stay away, and precipitated this problem??) I'd like semi-protect removed, and HighInBC warned. (Are my requests unreasonable?) Thx for your consider. IHTS ( talk) 14:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc,
Isn't this user TBAN'd on all things Armenia-related? Jaqeli 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
-- Steverci ( talk) 23:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the status of Acc tool? -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 13:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, he just violated again his TBAN here. Jaqeli 12:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc,
Looking at the edit history, it looks like you wrote the motion that is being proposed about Floq. Right now, it looks like it is a decree delivered from on high so even if the motion has the support of the entire arbitration committee could you include a note somewhere about your authorship? It reminds editors that the committee consists of distinct individuals who make different kinds of contributions. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Last edit was September 2015, but there have been reverts until then. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you recently protected the Coffee article. We have consensus to have Yemen in the infobox by itself [11]. If its not too much trouble, can you make that edit? Or I can wait a week its fine. Zekenyan ( talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The page, as it is now, should not exist. There is no such thing as Western Thought. The very term itself suggests incommensurabilites which are purely fictitious.
There is however, the concept being bandied about, and it would be much more interesting to create a page which presents the (political) history of that concept, expecially in the course of the last 70 years.
For far too many topics in the social sciences and the humanities, Wikipedia reflects the myths to which final year highschoolers and first-year undergrads are beholden at a given time (which may be a boon to sociologists). This page is one of the crassest examples of it. My satirical edit was merely trying to highlight this. 87.240.197.233 ( talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I edit articles that aren't specifically about Armenia, but have the word Armenia somewhere on them, if I don't touch the part about Armenia? For example I was planning on expanding the Alexander Suvorov article soon, which merely has the mention of a military school in Armenia named after him. If there is no mention of Armenia anywhere, is it automatically safe? -- Steverci ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
On this Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)? Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Canalec I appreciate your help, it comforts me. The fact is that I did for several years an accurate research on Naoum Mocarzel, and Salloum Mokarzel life achievements, I was happy if someone, without changing the facts I archeologically discovered, contribute and make it better, that is great, there is people in Wikipedia, that with the help "offer" are obstacles, with the argument that I don’t understand this or that, of course, if someone does not know history they are not going to understand, so I explain, give more sources, etc. Now he claim mi references are not reliable, please check them. The New York Times; Arab American Historian; The Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas (orthodoxhistory.org); Joseph Nathan Kane book More First Facts; University of Minnesota Immigration History Research Center; Annual report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year; After this “argument” I know is never going to be all right for them. since they threaten me for immediate deletion, if I don’t take their help, (offering “protection”) if you check the article I made, it is set for immediate deletion of course by another user, minute after the last message. Imagine I am going to hand wrestle, one and later anther user for trying to contribute with un refutable sources. Come on. who needs that. I try to contribute with culture, for accurate History, it was unwelcome. Mi contributions in Lebanon, etc reverted. So to please Wikipedia I blank Naoum Mokarzel and Salloum Mokarzel articles I made. If Wikipedia wants accurate history, or want to feed the myth, actions will be done. But not by me. I did not try to offend no one. Just contribute with history. Thank you, -- Trinity Abbey ( talk) 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I was just looking around some protection templates, and then I just was thinking about adding a pp-unsourced template. I was thinking of it being similar to the format of your pp-sock template, except with the reason being "to promote compliance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability". If you like this idea, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Personal attacks by Claudebone reported by Jim1138. Thank you.
Jim1138 (
talk)
08:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, Thank you for your message. I have tried to repair some links (maybe sometimes not hard enough?), but sometime the website does not exist anymore (e.g. http://www.gastronomiaenvenezuela.com/2012/04/rasgos-del-ron-de-venezuela/). So there is no way to repair it. How should we do?
Thank you
Lionel
Hello Callanecc. You referred to the passing of the motion here. But where is it? I looked in WP:Arbitration/Index/Motions and don't see it. Lately there has been a discussion at User talk:Drmies#The labyrinth on where to log new sanctions, and I wanted to link to where the DSLOG was enacted. It seems that already some sanctions have been mistakenly logged in the regular cases post-January 2015, suggesting a worthwhile task for a clerk that understands this stuff. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, I see that you have semi-protected kalyeserye for vandalism. I am requesting that you do the same for this related page, AlDub. If you check its revision history, numerous instances of vandalism by IP editors occur often. Thank you! Tankytoon ( talk) 09:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe ( talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Despite very low edit, I notice that none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Miniapolis#Moving sanctions from 2015 to 2016. Can you explain the theory? The only problem I knew about previously was that sanctions were being recorded on the end of the cases during 2015, that should have been in the log instead. I'm unclear on why sanctions that were put in the log in 2015 also need to be copied into later logs. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sachin Tomar is protected from creation and I came across Tomar Sachin's. Since you were the one who last deleted the article, can you check if it has the same information. And if not, move the article to its proper name. Regards, Ya sh ! 11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Earlier you have put the ban of edit all articles about the war in Syria for this editor because he is broke rules of edit
here But later you remove this ban but this guy still violate the rules of edit. He is again remove the towns and villages from map and do other editings without any sources on based suggestions and on based of him personal desires and his actions are causing great harm to the map.
here
here
here
[12] He ignored all comments in which I ask him stop make such edits but he again provide me only his suggestions and reflections, and nothing more. According to the rules of edit here:
1-A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided.
a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).
2-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and
WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source:
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”
3-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.
We must edit only based relaible sources which must distinctly provide all our edits but his many times ignored this rules. So I ask you to convince him not to do so or to restore previously established ban otherwise its illegal actions will continue to cause damage to this article. Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map Sûriyeya ( talk) 07:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Destiny Leo ( talk) 08:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello old friend, there is currently an ACC CU backlog of 15+ requests at the time of writing this. Any assistance would be appreciated! -- Cheers, Ril ey 02:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been 2 years since I was warned about sockpuppeting, and I was hoping to have the issue reviewed. I didn't do so at the time because I didn't want to appear disrespectful of admin authority, but I have been consistently frustrated by the false charge and the stigma it has given me on WP. The Appeals page recommends I speak to the enforcing admin first, so I thought I'd run my reasoning by you. 2 years ago Vzaak(they since left WP) and I had several disagreeable interactions while editing, and they began stating I should be removed from WP.
As a side note, two of the editors who at various times supported Vzaak's claims against me ( Barney and 76) were later sanctioned and/or blocked for inappropriate personal attacks.
Would you please consider reviewing the warning I have on record? To this day it is difficult to resolve any policy discussion without someone referring to me as a "sock" and disregarding any points I was making. The initial SPI originated from an editor who had a clear hostility toward me, charged me with various infractions over and over, and was eventually proven to have been citing inaccurate information. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! The Cap'n ( talk) 01:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to confess to the hoax I pulled on Robert Young in 2012.
It was under his name, I create a sockpuppet account, that and post irresponsible, unacceptable content on Wikipedia and make unacceptable edits. Robert Young is innocent, I am not living on the same continent than Robert. I live in South Africa, he lives in the USA.
It is my fault that he has difficulty return to Wikipedia. I am sorry for the disruption I cause and are ashamed of how immature my behaviour was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo9087 ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Why someone of admins remove protection from this article Syrian Civil War detailed mapand for now all users also unregistered IP editors. Need put protection that be protect from IP edtors which violated rules of edit and break the article. So I ak you fix this error. Sûriyeya ( talk) 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc, I was hoping to get some advice from you. This week, I've run into three relatively new editors (2-3 months) who spend most of their time posting on user pages and user talk pages. They are either young or pretending to be young. I've posted the "Wikipedia is not a social network" message on some talk pages and at least one editor is taking the message to heart. But for the editors who continue with this behavior (which includes asking other editors to offer personal information to them), how long is this tolerated? This could be a new editor who doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or it could be a troll, wasting our time. How much rope/time is given before showing a clueless editor to the exit? Liz Read! Talk! 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I ran into all of this by accident and I figured you could offer some perspective. Do you think there is enough connection between this user and this blocked user to justify an SPI? DaltonCastle ( talk) 00:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc, I was hoping you could offer suggestions for dealing with an issue. A while back you suggested I avoid interacting with HughD [13]. Aside from pages we had been both editing prior to that suggestion I have followed that request. Since that time HughD has made much of that post, for example here [14]. HughD took that comment to mean, "don't follow HughD to other pages". Fair enough. On March 2nd HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto page. I've been involved with the page and related talk page for a while. It seems if a person is complaining that they are being wikihounded, the correct action is to avoid the hound NOT to "hound the hound" by going to an article I have been working on and the getting the other editors mad at you. He even searched through my edit history to note another page I've been involved with [General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy] page [15].
Since March 2nd HughD averaged about 50 edits per day [16] (talk page [17]). That large volume of edits makes it harder for other editors to work on the page. The article has been locked twice due to his edit warring [18], [19]. HughD is currently bludgeoning the talk page and generally not listening to not only myself but another long term editor (see Greglocock's comments in the 3RR complaints) but also badgering 3rd party editors responding to his RfC [20]. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this situation? I don't care that he is at the page but I do care that he refuses to work with other editors and is generally being disruptive. Thanks for any suggestions. Springee ( talk) 03:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map a high probability of war editors because of repeated violations the established rules of editing. I want prevent this in advance, and I need your advice. What I can do, and maybe you can look at this discussions here here and can advise me something. Some editors just frankly do not want to observe the rules for editing here. I just really do not want that again has been established temporary limitation to edit of this module: here. Sûriyeya ( talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Destiny Leo ( talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Gilliam. I think Truthalwaysrules has possibly return as Mikeis1996 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has the same interest of The Calling, Matchbox Twenty, Nickelback and his other favorite rock/metal bands. 115.164.84.7 ( talk) 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, been a long time since I posted on a talk page! Every now and again I'll stop by and check a few things, one of which is my vanished account's history. So having done that today, I just wanted to confirm that the block of User:Lukeno94 is valid, because that wasn't me and was indeed an impostor (the American date usage on European articles should make it as obvious as anything else.) Seems a bit of a strange time to start impersonating me, since I walked out several months before that! 95.144.61.53 ( talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
[21] should be looked at in this context [22] Legacypac ( talk) 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc - I'd also like to draw your attention to the edit summary here: [23], where QEDK apparently takes it as a personal affront that I've asked for clarification on this page protection and threatens to "run everywhere against me". I'm withdrawing myself from this argument because the amount of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is way above my head, but I really don't think that protecting a policy page for a month to match the views of a single editor who is actively threatening me and is currently trying to get another dissenting editor topic banned at ANI is really the way to go. Give it some thought. Cheers. ~ Rob Talk 05:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Time has passed. No vandalism occurred at this time. Downgrade to PC or unprotect? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello sir, sorry for taking your time.
With regards to WP:GS/ISIL and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR sanctions regime that said: “All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.”
by knowing that and being involved this matter with Yemeni Civil War and subpages related to it (such as Map of the Yemeni Civil War) also existence of edit warring at there and even breach of this restriction & revert it from documentation subpage [24], [25], [26]
Might applied this sanction on those pages as legally?
Best regards. K!lluminati ( talk) 01:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Steverci ( talk) 03:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, hi. You declined my speedy deletion request of the above mentioned article as per A7 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. This article makes no clear assertion of importance, and A7 only excludes educational institutions, which this does not fall under. So can you please explain me why you rejected my request for speedy deletion? Thanks. -- 113.203.203.53 ( talk) 13:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For keeping an eye for vandals and advertisers :D Keep up the good work! → The Pancake of Heaven! ( T • C • E) 10:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Dave Sharma you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
04:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The article
Dave Sharma you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Dave Sharma for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The article
Dave Sharma you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Dave Sharma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
20:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Joint decisions were adopted the basic rules for the editing of this module:
1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.
3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. here
These rules help us to keep order and prevent unjustified changes in module. But this guy here try break of these rules and he don't want fallow to them here here, but such actions can have very serious consequences because then the rest of the editors also will be not follow these rules and this will provoke a lot of unjustified changes and this will harm of module. Maybe you how the administrator can influence of it. Otherwise, all editors also will cease to respect the rules. Because we have many unreliable amateur maps and unreliable sources and if all start use them it is will be very bad and it may even provoke a war edits. Sûriyeya ( talk) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Since I have been accused I would like to say a few things in my defense.
1. As the very first thing, I would like to say I did not POV push any issue, or broke rules multiple times, as Suriyeya is claiming. Not to mention, I did not state I don't want to follow them, and in fact, I stated multiple times I agree with the said rules.
2. Editor Suriyeya stated, in his personal opinion, that the source in question (deSyracuse) is, and I quote, a amateur activist from a twitter and nothing more, even though I provided to him a link
[27] for the source which is an appropriate website with really professionally done maps and in great detail. Plus, I find his reasoning odd considering Sûriyeya uses twitter posts on a regular basis to edit the Syrian war Wikipedia map. I pointed out that, to mark a source as unreliable, he would have to provide evidence (other sources) that question the reliability of the said source (which he did not).
3. I advised him that unsourced negative personal opinions on a source is considered POV OR, which is not per WP policy. Furthermore, I provided to him a link
[28] to a news site that uses maps from the source in question. Note, this news site Suriyeya also uses on a regular basis and calls it a reliable source. I thought, considering this is considered a reliable source and it is using the maps from deSyracuse, would give a level of verifiability to deSyracuse. This part he ignored.
4. Furthermore, he said the usage of any maps as sources on the Wikipedia map is in violation of
WP:RS and
WP:CIRCULAR. I explained to him that WP:RS does not have a general rule prohibiting any kinds of maps and that WP:CIRCULAR does not have anything to do with the usage of maps, but that instead it prohibits the usage of Wikipedia articles as sources on Wikipedia. Than, he pointed out the article's talk page rule Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. I pointed out to him that I agree with both rules, but that the source is not a mainstream media nor is it an amateur source (remind again the maps are professionally done maps and in great detail and there is an official website). He ignored this part as well.
5. As I tried to continue discussing the issue, he threatened to call an administrator and said he was not interested in a lengthy discussion on the talk page. I told him that issuing threats instead of continuing to discuss the issue on the talk page is not per WP policy on assuming good faith. Not to mention, a few times, I tried to end the discussion myself and let it be as he wants it, trying to leave the issue on a good note, but he continued the argument himself. Also, all the while we were having the discussion he made several subtle but still uncivil comments towards me which were not per WP: Civil. He also basically has accused me of POV pushing even though he has continued to denounce the source in question in a POV manner (like I said, calling it an amateur activist from a twitter even though he himself has used twitter posts multiple times). I see he has also accused me of misinterpretation of the source, even though I have not made any edits that are contrary to the source.
6. Finally, at the very start of our argument, he said my edit was ultimately fine and OK because it reverted an edit that was in violation of another talk page rule. So, he coming to an administrator is more of a reaction to me trying to continue the discussion about the source, which he himself said he was not interested in having, and he probably felt bugged by me. And I really don't see how my ONE edit (that is in his lone opinion improper) and my subsequent attempt at having a discussion for the sake of clarification and compromise (that he himself has stated is not interested in having) makes me the bad guy?
EkoGraf (
talk)
00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin called me out on a talk page. My only sanction is a Topic Ban imposed by Gamaliel. I am going to appeal it now that the the other party is Topic Banned. Is that forbidden? Can I defend myself from SV? I would love Gamaliel to be IBANned from me and have no problem never interacting again. It solves his INVOLVED problem. But being blamed by third parties because he violated admin rules is ludicrous. I respectfully reserve the right to comment to 3rd parties making scurrilous aspersions. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Traditionally, when an editor committed faux pas, a clerk handled it (allowing arbitrators to appear wise and distant), and they addressed the user on the talk page, rather than the public scolding of the evidence page. e.g. User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2012#Evidence. Personally, I think it comes across better doing it the old way. NE Ent 02:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc, excuse me if this is the not the right place to request this, but I noted you restored the Trump MFD [29] for purposes of the arbitration. I noted the MFD refers to talk page discussion, so it would seem that this [30] should also be restored in trying to trace the fighting over the page. cheers.-- Milowent • has spoken 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
TJH2018 talk 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you block this user?: User:Gogo212121 because he vandalizes he is doing edits in some articles without any reasons nor sources.
And this is not the first time that he does such actions. You can view his history of editing here and you will see that all his changes are made without providing sources and such actions violates the rules of editing. I do not know how to make a request for a lock but I hope for your help. Sûriyeya ( talk) 11:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Isaac Parker you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Wizardman --
Wizardman (
talk)
21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
See my comment there. [31]. While the name was rev del'd it left aspersions that are unsubstantiated and part of your reques. I made no such comparison and "alleged" doesn't fix the unsubstantiated aspersion. You requested diffs, whic I provided but that sentence should also be rev del'd as it it makes no sense and also makes an accusation that is no longer defended or supported. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This is with regards to the page /info/en/?search=Foodfight!
As you may know, this page has repeatedly been used to disparage the film's director. If you look at traffic patterns for this page, it appears that someone is buying clicks, so that the page ranks high on any search for the film's director and/or production company.
If you cannot prevent this from happening, please remove this page.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkasanoff ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The article
Isaac Parker you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Isaac Parker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Wizardman --
Wizardman (
talk)
14:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Isaac Parker at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Random86 (
talk)
03:59, 16 May 2016 (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
Future changes
<div/>
and <span/>
to mean <div></div>
and <span></span>
will not work in the future. Templates and pages that use these tags should be fixed. When
Phabricator ticket T134423 is fixed these tags will parse as <div>
and <span>
instead. This is normal in HTML5.
[38]Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 19 May 2016 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there: I saw that you recently closed a WP:AE request against HughD without taking action. He is continuing to edit the Watchdog.org article, both in article space and on the talk page. The article says that "Watchdog.org represented the 'largest media investment to date' for Charles and David Koch" as well as "the Franklin Center [Watchdog.org's parent organization] has its origins in the Sam Adams Alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes free-market Tea Party-style citizen activism." HughD has recently opened up an RFC on the talk page relating to the "degree of partisanship" of Watchdog.org's content. Given his topic ban on tea party and Koch articles, I'm wondering if you consider his most recent participation on that article to be in violation of his topic ban, and if so, what steps should be taken. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. I was not notified of this discussion. May I offer a perspective?
Some editors were disappointed that my topic ban was not American Politics, and will not let it go. Some editors were disappointed at the disposition of the recent AE request, and will not let it go. For some editors noticeboard filings are easier than the heavy lifting of collaborating on content.
Policy is clear, please see WP:TBAN, the fourth bullet: coverage of a banned topic in an article does not "infect" the whole article and bring it in to scope, just that part of the article, emphasis in the original. The stated purpose of our topic ban policy is to allow a conscientious topic banned editor to continue to contribute to our project, not to allow editors a method to use notice board filings to pick and choose who they want to collaborate with.
I beg temporary, local leave to address the dubious Koch-Watchdog connection here on our AE clerk's talk page since it was raised in attacking me here. Thank you.
In 2013, the Kochs were rumored to be looking at the Tribune company newspapers, a deal valued at some $600M. On that occasion, the Columbia Journalism Review reposted an earlier report on Franklin and Watchdog, and prefaced it with several paragraphs of editorial commentary, which teaser fancifully, tongue-in-cheek referred to an alleged Koch -> Donors Trust -> Franklin -> Watchdog funding stream as an "investment."
Watchdog.org is not a company, it is a set of websites built by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which is a non-profit charity. Not only are the Kochs not investors in The Franklin Center, the Franklin Center has no "investors". In fact it is illegal to invest in the Franklin Center.
On 10 July 2013 one of our colleagues attempted to add a Koch connection to Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and Safehaven86 deleted it within minutes, with an edit summary of "Remove WP:SYNTH", with no effort to collaborate, salvage or repair. This exclusion persisted, until, after the consensus that Watchdog.org was out of scope developed at the AE noticeboard, suddenly, the editor who filed the failing AE request for enforcement added the source back, in a failed, blatant, pathetic hail mary attempt to salvage a failing pointed, game-ridden, sad, pathetic, harassing AE request. I doubt our project's arbiters may want to endorse a strategy of filing requests for topic ban enforcements first, and then editing the subject article to bring it within scope as necessary later; and I doubt our arbiters may want to endorse a strategy of cleansing our project's articles of content deemed unflattering, while maintaining an undocumented understanding that a connection sufficient for topic ban enforcement exists; but if any editor thinks so, a new filing might be appropriate.
Please note there is no evidence of disruptive editing and no evidence of a topic ban violation as one would look for before additional sanctions; this is a pure content dispute, regarding the neutrality of our project's article Watchdog.org with respect to reliable sources. Involved editors are kindly requested to return to article talk in good faith and make their best policy- and guideline-based cases for their preferred edits, in collaboration with the editors they find there. No one should feel threatened by a request for comment. A request for comment is how reasonable Wikipedia editors address a local consensus which may be at odds with our pillars, our policies, or our guidelines. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what one administrator thinks. a consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE correctly applied WP:TBAN and concluded that my edits to Watchdog.org are out of scope of a Koch/Tea Party topic ban. Are not administrators bound by policy and consensus just like everybody else? Hugh ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
GAB
Hello! is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best of luck in 2016,
GAB Hello! 15:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have started an enforcement request regarding a warning/sanction that you logged as an administrator [7] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!
Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 01:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
-- Steverci ( talk) 04:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc, isn't Steverci TBAN'ed on all things concerning Armenia? Jaqeli 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note that the vandalism that I predicted within one week of the article in question coming of a year long full protection expiring occured within the predicted week. The indefinite full protection that I asked for was finally granted. Hasteur ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 24:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! ~~--
Tenebrae (
talk)
I wish that you'll come back soon. 115.164.176.6 ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to tell me, because I see that you have checkuser jurisdiction, how can I be unblocked. Remove the block from my account may enforce only checkuser Commission, not ordinary administrators.
I would like to remind you that my only real account Parkirovskieng, and he is infinitely blocked due to harmful use sockpuppets.
I promise you and arbitration checkuser Commission which should by forwarding this message from me, I know why I was blocked and I would never use at all sockpuppet but only a real account Parkirovskieng. More importantly I will never vandalize Wikipedia, because now I know the rules. While I used sockpuppet, I was not so familiar with the rules of conduct on Wikipedia but I'm well aware of what you can do and what must not.
I request you to notify checkuser Commission that all sock puppets accounts Parkirovskieng will never be used, but more importantly will not vandalize Wikipedia. The only account that I use is Parkirovskieng.
I'd even let you know that the account Parkirovskieng blocked just because I was with a false account deleted a comment another user. There was no bad intention but ordinary inattention. That is why I requested that we checkuser Commission to take as a mitigating factor if approved unblock my account. It's all easily verifiable and you can check if you do not at all lie already talking a fact.
If you unblock my account, I have nothing against that all further activities account follow them because I can guarantee one hundred percent that nothing more damaging to Wikipedia will not do. I'll be exemplary user. It does not hurt to inform Checkuser arbitration commission that my Unblock Ticket Request System was rejected on the grounds that only after six months of blocking my accounts can be unblocked. For me it is ambiguity whether, and how, after those six months that we remove the block and what to do to make me unblocked. I really do not understand why so long I should wait.
It occurs to me that if I ever will be unblocked, but now I address directly with volunteers Checkuser status that only can I unblock with arbitration. So we wrote the account it that only you do it in my case. That's why I wanted to read carefully this my plea and I hope we give a "second chance" or unblock my account. And you know that we're all volunteers here and understand my reasonable request. For me it is a punishment and unfair to wait six months as blocked and after that everything is uncertain whether I will unblock or block may extend to one year. For me it was a penalty.
I repeat that I will not ever one hundred percent use any sockpuppet my account Parkirovskieng, but only Parkirovskieng as a true and honest account. I know the rules and I will never do damage Wikipedia.
If I had not been familiar with the rules and now I am free I can unblock. I know you must not delete the comments from other people and that it is vandalism. I appeal strongly hope that you will like the competent Checkuser arbitration commission take into consideration this my remark and permanently unblock my account. 109.121.50.177 ( talk) 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in what the chances are that if you now send the request to be unblocked. Can you give me to help with other administrators, and just so you know I forgot gmail of Parkirovskieng account. Is has a genuine gmail from my account Parkirovskieng or can be made new for communication with the Unblock Ticket Request System. 109.121.50.177 ( talk) 02:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I sent a very thorough request to unblock my account. We are asking you to influence the decision the arbitration to be unblocked. Really you'd ask you to give me "a new chance". Parkirovskieng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.50.177 ( talk) 14:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I was not sure who to talk to in regards to this, I've seen three emails to Arb Com and Doug Weller. I am innocent of this accusation and therefore must have this resolved. I've have not been followed up and I was wondering what the status and outcome of this is. Particularly who the accuser is. Valoem talk contrib 18:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Destiny Leo ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You just said that "proxying is not against policy" – Well, sure, not as such. But proxying for a harasser is against policy. Because the moment you reinstate the harasser's posting, "taking responsibility" for it, you are yourself the harasser. "Taking responsibility" means you are prepared to be judged as if you yourself were the author of the offending posting. The moment TRM restored that posting, he had made himself accessory to the same offense as the IP troll himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Enough with the claims of "no competence" and "lack of brain" and "proxying for a sockpuppet". Little wonder people react so negatively towards you FPAS, you may feel harassed, but your bad faith towards other is astonishing. The Rambling Man ( talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc could you look at this (plus related reverts & restores & editsums); I like to know if FPAS acted appropriately or not: User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Final warning (Thank you.) IHTS ( talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For what it is worth when I saw the edit it was abundantly clear it was harassment. The first hint was that it was spammed on several user pages, the second hint was the content. HighInBC 04:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently requested admin HighInBC to stay off my Talk. (I made the request recently at his Talk, it is hard to believe he forgot the request so quickly.) He posted to my Talk today, and an IP responded to the post, and now as a result the overly aggressive admin Future Perfect at Sunrise has locked my Talk from IPs. (That hardly seems equitable. I recently aided an IP posting to my Talk re correcting info in a chess-related article. And is there any way to "semi-protect" HighInBC from posting again, who ignored my request to stay away, and precipitated this problem??) I'd like semi-protect removed, and HighInBC warned. (Are my requests unreasonable?) Thx for your consider. IHTS ( talk) 14:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc,
Isn't this user TBAN'd on all things Armenia-related? Jaqeli 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
-- Steverci ( talk) 23:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the status of Acc tool? -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 13:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, he just violated again his TBAN here. Jaqeli 12:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc,
Looking at the edit history, it looks like you wrote the motion that is being proposed about Floq. Right now, it looks like it is a decree delivered from on high so even if the motion has the support of the entire arbitration committee could you include a note somewhere about your authorship? It reminds editors that the committee consists of distinct individuals who make different kinds of contributions. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Last edit was September 2015, but there have been reverts until then. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you recently protected the Coffee article. We have consensus to have Yemen in the infobox by itself [11]. If its not too much trouble, can you make that edit? Or I can wait a week its fine. Zekenyan ( talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The page, as it is now, should not exist. There is no such thing as Western Thought. The very term itself suggests incommensurabilites which are purely fictitious.
There is however, the concept being bandied about, and it would be much more interesting to create a page which presents the (political) history of that concept, expecially in the course of the last 70 years.
For far too many topics in the social sciences and the humanities, Wikipedia reflects the myths to which final year highschoolers and first-year undergrads are beholden at a given time (which may be a boon to sociologists). This page is one of the crassest examples of it. My satirical edit was merely trying to highlight this. 87.240.197.233 ( talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I edit articles that aren't specifically about Armenia, but have the word Armenia somewhere on them, if I don't touch the part about Armenia? For example I was planning on expanding the Alexander Suvorov article soon, which merely has the mention of a military school in Armenia named after him. If there is no mention of Armenia anywhere, is it automatically safe? -- Steverci ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
On this Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)? Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Canalec I appreciate your help, it comforts me. The fact is that I did for several years an accurate research on Naoum Mocarzel, and Salloum Mokarzel life achievements, I was happy if someone, without changing the facts I archeologically discovered, contribute and make it better, that is great, there is people in Wikipedia, that with the help "offer" are obstacles, with the argument that I don’t understand this or that, of course, if someone does not know history they are not going to understand, so I explain, give more sources, etc. Now he claim mi references are not reliable, please check them. The New York Times; Arab American Historian; The Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas (orthodoxhistory.org); Joseph Nathan Kane book More First Facts; University of Minnesota Immigration History Research Center; Annual report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year; After this “argument” I know is never going to be all right for them. since they threaten me for immediate deletion, if I don’t take their help, (offering “protection”) if you check the article I made, it is set for immediate deletion of course by another user, minute after the last message. Imagine I am going to hand wrestle, one and later anther user for trying to contribute with un refutable sources. Come on. who needs that. I try to contribute with culture, for accurate History, it was unwelcome. Mi contributions in Lebanon, etc reverted. So to please Wikipedia I blank Naoum Mokarzel and Salloum Mokarzel articles I made. If Wikipedia wants accurate history, or want to feed the myth, actions will be done. But not by me. I did not try to offend no one. Just contribute with history. Thank you, -- Trinity Abbey ( talk) 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I was just looking around some protection templates, and then I just was thinking about adding a pp-unsourced template. I was thinking of it being similar to the format of your pp-sock template, except with the reason being "to promote compliance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability". If you like this idea, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Personal attacks by Claudebone reported by Jim1138. Thank you.
Jim1138 (
talk)
08:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, Thank you for your message. I have tried to repair some links (maybe sometimes not hard enough?), but sometime the website does not exist anymore (e.g. http://www.gastronomiaenvenezuela.com/2012/04/rasgos-del-ron-de-venezuela/). So there is no way to repair it. How should we do?
Thank you
Lionel
Hello Callanecc. You referred to the passing of the motion here. But where is it? I looked in WP:Arbitration/Index/Motions and don't see it. Lately there has been a discussion at User talk:Drmies#The labyrinth on where to log new sanctions, and I wanted to link to where the DSLOG was enacted. It seems that already some sanctions have been mistakenly logged in the regular cases post-January 2015, suggesting a worthwhile task for a clerk that understands this stuff. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, I see that you have semi-protected kalyeserye for vandalism. I am requesting that you do the same for this related page, AlDub. If you check its revision history, numerous instances of vandalism by IP editors occur often. Thank you! Tankytoon ( talk) 09:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe ( talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Despite very low edit, I notice that none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Miniapolis#Moving sanctions from 2015 to 2016. Can you explain the theory? The only problem I knew about previously was that sanctions were being recorded on the end of the cases during 2015, that should have been in the log instead. I'm unclear on why sanctions that were put in the log in 2015 also need to be copied into later logs. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sachin Tomar is protected from creation and I came across Tomar Sachin's. Since you were the one who last deleted the article, can you check if it has the same information. And if not, move the article to its proper name. Regards, Ya sh ! 11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Earlier you have put the ban of edit all articles about the war in Syria for this editor because he is broke rules of edit
here But later you remove this ban but this guy still violate the rules of edit. He is again remove the towns and villages from map and do other editings without any sources on based suggestions and on based of him personal desires and his actions are causing great harm to the map.
here
here
here
[12] He ignored all comments in which I ask him stop make such edits but he again provide me only his suggestions and reflections, and nothing more. According to the rules of edit here:
1-A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided.
a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).
2-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and
WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source:
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”
3-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.
We must edit only based relaible sources which must distinctly provide all our edits but his many times ignored this rules. So I ask you to convince him not to do so or to restore previously established ban otherwise its illegal actions will continue to cause damage to this article. Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map Sûriyeya ( talk) 07:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Destiny Leo ( talk) 08:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello old friend, there is currently an ACC CU backlog of 15+ requests at the time of writing this. Any assistance would be appreciated! -- Cheers, Ril ey 02:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been 2 years since I was warned about sockpuppeting, and I was hoping to have the issue reviewed. I didn't do so at the time because I didn't want to appear disrespectful of admin authority, but I have been consistently frustrated by the false charge and the stigma it has given me on WP. The Appeals page recommends I speak to the enforcing admin first, so I thought I'd run my reasoning by you. 2 years ago Vzaak(they since left WP) and I had several disagreeable interactions while editing, and they began stating I should be removed from WP.
As a side note, two of the editors who at various times supported Vzaak's claims against me ( Barney and 76) were later sanctioned and/or blocked for inappropriate personal attacks.
Would you please consider reviewing the warning I have on record? To this day it is difficult to resolve any policy discussion without someone referring to me as a "sock" and disregarding any points I was making. The initial SPI originated from an editor who had a clear hostility toward me, charged me with various infractions over and over, and was eventually proven to have been citing inaccurate information. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! The Cap'n ( talk) 01:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to confess to the hoax I pulled on Robert Young in 2012.
It was under his name, I create a sockpuppet account, that and post irresponsible, unacceptable content on Wikipedia and make unacceptable edits. Robert Young is innocent, I am not living on the same continent than Robert. I live in South Africa, he lives in the USA.
It is my fault that he has difficulty return to Wikipedia. I am sorry for the disruption I cause and are ashamed of how immature my behaviour was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo9087 ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Why someone of admins remove protection from this article Syrian Civil War detailed mapand for now all users also unregistered IP editors. Need put protection that be protect from IP edtors which violated rules of edit and break the article. So I ak you fix this error. Sûriyeya ( talk) 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc, I was hoping to get some advice from you. This week, I've run into three relatively new editors (2-3 months) who spend most of their time posting on user pages and user talk pages. They are either young or pretending to be young. I've posted the "Wikipedia is not a social network" message on some talk pages and at least one editor is taking the message to heart. But for the editors who continue with this behavior (which includes asking other editors to offer personal information to them), how long is this tolerated? This could be a new editor who doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or it could be a troll, wasting our time. How much rope/time is given before showing a clueless editor to the exit? Liz Read! Talk! 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I ran into all of this by accident and I figured you could offer some perspective. Do you think there is enough connection between this user and this blocked user to justify an SPI? DaltonCastle ( talk) 00:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc, I was hoping you could offer suggestions for dealing with an issue. A while back you suggested I avoid interacting with HughD [13]. Aside from pages we had been both editing prior to that suggestion I have followed that request. Since that time HughD has made much of that post, for example here [14]. HughD took that comment to mean, "don't follow HughD to other pages". Fair enough. On March 2nd HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto page. I've been involved with the page and related talk page for a while. It seems if a person is complaining that they are being wikihounded, the correct action is to avoid the hound NOT to "hound the hound" by going to an article I have been working on and the getting the other editors mad at you. He even searched through my edit history to note another page I've been involved with [General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy] page [15].
Since March 2nd HughD averaged about 50 edits per day [16] (talk page [17]). That large volume of edits makes it harder for other editors to work on the page. The article has been locked twice due to his edit warring [18], [19]. HughD is currently bludgeoning the talk page and generally not listening to not only myself but another long term editor (see Greglocock's comments in the 3RR complaints) but also badgering 3rd party editors responding to his RfC [20]. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this situation? I don't care that he is at the page but I do care that he refuses to work with other editors and is generally being disruptive. Thanks for any suggestions. Springee ( talk) 03:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map a high probability of war editors because of repeated violations the established rules of editing. I want prevent this in advance, and I need your advice. What I can do, and maybe you can look at this discussions here here and can advise me something. Some editors just frankly do not want to observe the rules for editing here. I just really do not want that again has been established temporary limitation to edit of this module: here. Sûriyeya ( talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Destiny Leo ( talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Gilliam. I think Truthalwaysrules has possibly return as Mikeis1996 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has the same interest of The Calling, Matchbox Twenty, Nickelback and his other favorite rock/metal bands. 115.164.84.7 ( talk) 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, been a long time since I posted on a talk page! Every now and again I'll stop by and check a few things, one of which is my vanished account's history. So having done that today, I just wanted to confirm that the block of User:Lukeno94 is valid, because that wasn't me and was indeed an impostor (the American date usage on European articles should make it as obvious as anything else.) Seems a bit of a strange time to start impersonating me, since I walked out several months before that! 95.144.61.53 ( talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
[21] should be looked at in this context [22] Legacypac ( talk) 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc - I'd also like to draw your attention to the edit summary here: [23], where QEDK apparently takes it as a personal affront that I've asked for clarification on this page protection and threatens to "run everywhere against me". I'm withdrawing myself from this argument because the amount of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is way above my head, but I really don't think that protecting a policy page for a month to match the views of a single editor who is actively threatening me and is currently trying to get another dissenting editor topic banned at ANI is really the way to go. Give it some thought. Cheers. ~ Rob Talk 05:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Time has passed. No vandalism occurred at this time. Downgrade to PC or unprotect? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello sir, sorry for taking your time.
With regards to WP:GS/ISIL and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR sanctions regime that said: “All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.”
by knowing that and being involved this matter with Yemeni Civil War and subpages related to it (such as Map of the Yemeni Civil War) also existence of edit warring at there and even breach of this restriction & revert it from documentation subpage [24], [25], [26]
Might applied this sanction on those pages as legally?
Best regards. K!lluminati ( talk) 01:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Steverci ( talk) 03:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, hi. You declined my speedy deletion request of the above mentioned article as per A7 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. This article makes no clear assertion of importance, and A7 only excludes educational institutions, which this does not fall under. So can you please explain me why you rejected my request for speedy deletion? Thanks. -- 113.203.203.53 ( talk) 13:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For keeping an eye for vandals and advertisers :D Keep up the good work! → The Pancake of Heaven! ( T • C • E) 10:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Dave Sharma you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
04:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The article
Dave Sharma you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Dave Sharma for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The article
Dave Sharma you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Dave Sharma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
20:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Joint decisions were adopted the basic rules for the editing of this module:
1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.
3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. here
These rules help us to keep order and prevent unjustified changes in module. But this guy here try break of these rules and he don't want fallow to them here here, but such actions can have very serious consequences because then the rest of the editors also will be not follow these rules and this will provoke a lot of unjustified changes and this will harm of module. Maybe you how the administrator can influence of it. Otherwise, all editors also will cease to respect the rules. Because we have many unreliable amateur maps and unreliable sources and if all start use them it is will be very bad and it may even provoke a war edits. Sûriyeya ( talk) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Since I have been accused I would like to say a few things in my defense.
1. As the very first thing, I would like to say I did not POV push any issue, or broke rules multiple times, as Suriyeya is claiming. Not to mention, I did not state I don't want to follow them, and in fact, I stated multiple times I agree with the said rules.
2. Editor Suriyeya stated, in his personal opinion, that the source in question (deSyracuse) is, and I quote, a amateur activist from a twitter and nothing more, even though I provided to him a link
[27] for the source which is an appropriate website with really professionally done maps and in great detail. Plus, I find his reasoning odd considering Sûriyeya uses twitter posts on a regular basis to edit the Syrian war Wikipedia map. I pointed out that, to mark a source as unreliable, he would have to provide evidence (other sources) that question the reliability of the said source (which he did not).
3. I advised him that unsourced negative personal opinions on a source is considered POV OR, which is not per WP policy. Furthermore, I provided to him a link
[28] to a news site that uses maps from the source in question. Note, this news site Suriyeya also uses on a regular basis and calls it a reliable source. I thought, considering this is considered a reliable source and it is using the maps from deSyracuse, would give a level of verifiability to deSyracuse. This part he ignored.
4. Furthermore, he said the usage of any maps as sources on the Wikipedia map is in violation of
WP:RS and
WP:CIRCULAR. I explained to him that WP:RS does not have a general rule prohibiting any kinds of maps and that WP:CIRCULAR does not have anything to do with the usage of maps, but that instead it prohibits the usage of Wikipedia articles as sources on Wikipedia. Than, he pointed out the article's talk page rule Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. I pointed out to him that I agree with both rules, but that the source is not a mainstream media nor is it an amateur source (remind again the maps are professionally done maps and in great detail and there is an official website). He ignored this part as well.
5. As I tried to continue discussing the issue, he threatened to call an administrator and said he was not interested in a lengthy discussion on the talk page. I told him that issuing threats instead of continuing to discuss the issue on the talk page is not per WP policy on assuming good faith. Not to mention, a few times, I tried to end the discussion myself and let it be as he wants it, trying to leave the issue on a good note, but he continued the argument himself. Also, all the while we were having the discussion he made several subtle but still uncivil comments towards me which were not per WP: Civil. He also basically has accused me of POV pushing even though he has continued to denounce the source in question in a POV manner (like I said, calling it an amateur activist from a twitter even though he himself has used twitter posts multiple times). I see he has also accused me of misinterpretation of the source, even though I have not made any edits that are contrary to the source.
6. Finally, at the very start of our argument, he said my edit was ultimately fine and OK because it reverted an edit that was in violation of another talk page rule. So, he coming to an administrator is more of a reaction to me trying to continue the discussion about the source, which he himself said he was not interested in having, and he probably felt bugged by me. And I really don't see how my ONE edit (that is in his lone opinion improper) and my subsequent attempt at having a discussion for the sake of clarification and compromise (that he himself has stated is not interested in having) makes me the bad guy?
EkoGraf (
talk)
00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin called me out on a talk page. My only sanction is a Topic Ban imposed by Gamaliel. I am going to appeal it now that the the other party is Topic Banned. Is that forbidden? Can I defend myself from SV? I would love Gamaliel to be IBANned from me and have no problem never interacting again. It solves his INVOLVED problem. But being blamed by third parties because he violated admin rules is ludicrous. I respectfully reserve the right to comment to 3rd parties making scurrilous aspersions. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Traditionally, when an editor committed faux pas, a clerk handled it (allowing arbitrators to appear wise and distant), and they addressed the user on the talk page, rather than the public scolding of the evidence page. e.g. User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2012#Evidence. Personally, I think it comes across better doing it the old way. NE Ent 02:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc, excuse me if this is the not the right place to request this, but I noted you restored the Trump MFD [29] for purposes of the arbitration. I noted the MFD refers to talk page discussion, so it would seem that this [30] should also be restored in trying to trace the fighting over the page. cheers.-- Milowent • has spoken 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
TJH2018 talk 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you block this user?: User:Gogo212121 because he vandalizes he is doing edits in some articles without any reasons nor sources.
And this is not the first time that he does such actions. You can view his history of editing here and you will see that all his changes are made without providing sources and such actions violates the rules of editing. I do not know how to make a request for a lock but I hope for your help. Sûriyeya ( talk) 11:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Isaac Parker you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Wizardman --
Wizardman (
talk)
21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
See my comment there. [31]. While the name was rev del'd it left aspersions that are unsubstantiated and part of your reques. I made no such comparison and "alleged" doesn't fix the unsubstantiated aspersion. You requested diffs, whic I provided but that sentence should also be rev del'd as it it makes no sense and also makes an accusation that is no longer defended or supported. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This is with regards to the page /info/en/?search=Foodfight!
As you may know, this page has repeatedly been used to disparage the film's director. If you look at traffic patterns for this page, it appears that someone is buying clicks, so that the page ranks high on any search for the film's director and/or production company.
If you cannot prevent this from happening, please remove this page.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkasanoff ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The article
Isaac Parker you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Isaac Parker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Wizardman --
Wizardman (
talk)
14:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Isaac Parker at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Random86 (
talk)
03:59, 16 May 2016 (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
Future changes
<div/>
and <span/>
to mean <div></div>
and <span></span>
will not work in the future. Templates and pages that use these tags should be fixed. When
Phabricator ticket T134423 is fixed these tags will parse as <div>
and <span>
instead. This is normal in HTML5.
[38]Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)