![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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. |
The problem with barley's edits is that he asserts that his bias is neutrality, insists that his wording is a compromise between his wording and other people's, and the fact that he's a WP:SPA determined to Right Great Wrongs, having arrived after Sheldrake exhorted people to fix the "problem" of an article that accurately identified his ideas a s nonsense. The article needs stability and measured change, not edit warriors who represent their POV as the neutral POV, despite the very obvious fact that it isn't.
You know that SPAs usually have a deep commitment to a POV and there is an imbalance of motive between the SPAs and the rest of the community (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion).
I have asked barley to stop editing and instead achieve consensus on talk for changes he wants to make, in an attempt to avoid having to start banninating people for disruption.
I have by this time done quite a bit of reading on the background to the Sheldon problem, more eyes is always good, have you also researched the subject? Basically, Sheldon has advanced an unfalsifiable conjecture which essentially mirrors the claims of parapsychology, fair tests of his ideas are virtually impossible due to their largely untestable premises, and (the important bit) there is virtually no discussion of his ideas in the professional journals of the relevant field - the primary discussion of his ideas is by philosophers or people who criticise them. Sheldrake's response is to say that science is a set of dogmas (and invoke Kuhn, as every crank does). Comparison with quantum statistic mechanics is valid: QSM was viewed with suspicion and rejected outright by Einstein, but it prevailed because it was a more coherent and complete explanation of the observed facts than was strict determinism. Shedrake's ideas do not pass that test: they make sense only if you accept his base premises on faith.
The Chopra quote is telling: Chopra thinks he's building bridges between science and religion. You can't. They are non-overlapping magisteria, and increasingly scientists reject religion altogether due to the lack of coherent testable frameworks.
Barley is here to support Sheldrake, and that is orthogonal to Wikipedia's purpose. I have a lot of experience with contentious biographies, and I'ma n OTRS volunteer, so I am comfortable that when I judge the biographical element to be compliant with WP:BLP I am right. Barley doesn't seem to accept that, and wants to re-argue the case ab initio rather than build on what's already there by addressing specific issues. That's the problem I'm trying to manage. Guy ( Help!) 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlike Guy, who just complained about how angry he was to have wasted time on the 2012 book, I have not read any of the Sheldrake books. But I have spent a long time reading the wikipedia history of the involved editors. And I don't call the BLP "Sheldon" by mistake. Callanecc, I'm happy to fill you in on the backstory if you like, but methinks you alone (no offense) won't be able to calm things down. The problems of warring will stay persistent, if there are only a small number of people involved. It has been a battleground since July or August, with hundreds of kilobytes of talkpage discussion, all leading nowhere.
Suggestion: can we bring in a bunch -- like a couple dozen -- randomly selected editors, and have short time-limited byte-limited discussions about each paragraph in the article, from top to bottom, repeat as needed until NPOV is achieved? That seems more likely to generate progress, but the last time somebody asked for outside input, they got hammered for allegedly canvassing. Your hands are probably clean enough that you can get away with recruiting, if you use
PRNG to select the victims helpers. :-) —
74.192.84.101 (
talk) 23:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to understand how Barleybannocks has been disruptive on the talk page, Callanecc ( talk. I'm interested in this page primarily regarding the recently declined ARBCOM case, especially regarding the harassment of editors. What it looks like to me is that one group of editors will provide challenging argumentation and just because they are arguing, it's considered disruptive. Is arguing on a talk page disruptive? If it is, arn't all sides disrupting the talk page? From my POV, I see Barleybannocks ( talk) just making argumentation - and if it gets heated, it's because there is a lot of harrassment from one side of the editors to the other. 23.241.74.200 ( talk) 22:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, the Tumbleman sockpuppet you just blocked made an appearance in this thread, and you replied to him/her. Admins have called Tumbleman "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", etc. [3] Would it be OK to {{ hat}} all of Tumbleman's comments at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake? Allowing the comments to stand would seem to reward this continued block evasion behavior. Actually I would rather delete the comments altogether, or at least the ones with no response. vzaak 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation in this edit. The decline did seem odd, and out of character for you, and it is reassuring to know that you didn't intend it. That damned problem of the number of sections changing before you click "Edit" is very easy to be caught by, and as a matter of fact, just before dealing with that request, I myself had almost been caught out by it on another request. I just noticed as I was about to click "Save". JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I looked into this person a bit more and found conclusive evidence for the additional socks
The contributions have the same ranting style and are in the same areas of orthomolecular medicine, vitamin C, organic food, plus an odd fixation on anti-Semitic conspiracies. [7] An SPI doesn't seem worthwhile since the accounts are already blocked, but since you were recently exposed to these rants I thought you might be curious. vzaak 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I've unsemiprotected since the trade is now official. I trust that this is okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cheers, thanks for your help with the Attack on Golden Dawn page, the edit war management and the cleaning up of the mess the article has created. Very appreciated. Tco03displays ( talk) 10:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC) |
Just wanted to know what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Is this, [8], [9], [10], acceptable? Barleybannocks ( talk) 11:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to have you helping out at RFPP! Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the assistance with my name change issue. :) JamesG5 ( talk) 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs)
Yes, of course he can be unblocked. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting the Jane Kim article. The same editor under different names has been vandalizing it. I was going to complain to official channels but you nipped it in the bud. Chisme ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
You once gave me one of these for running down the backlog at WP:RPP; permit me to return the favour. Nice work. Yunshui 雲 水 15:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) |
I have a few questions for you since you were the one to close the Move request for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. To start with the question that is bugging me the most, why would closing the debate with no consensus have the article remain the same page name? You mentioned it, but you didn't explain why that is the case when WP:NOCONSENSUS exists. The second is about the rough consensus, namely how is there a consensus for not moving the article if you count the oppose and support !votes? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me editing your userpage. Jianhui67 talk★ contribs 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you reset pending changes settings? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If you close a RM discussion with {{ RM top}}, than you don't need to sign it, because the template does that automatically. 84.0.247.141 ( talk) 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
About Origins of Romanians. Please read again Wikipedia's policy on edit. I always entered reliable references. You got involved in a nationalistic approach of some Hungarian editors:
1. They denied a well known byzantinolog Alexandru Elian without adding opposing references.
2. They declared my references as "original work" !!!
3. They denied their Hungarian historyan Moravcsik.
Please read again motivations from talk pages and you will understand that some editors work against Wikipedia's policy. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is very simple to take a look: Read here: http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/alexiada.pdf (at page 253) Anna Comnen clearly describes Dacians around Haemus mountains. A lot of Romanian historians saw this. This is why I proposed a compromise. Moravcsick was a translator and influenced a large part of readers. Comnen used "Hungarians" term only in connection with Panonia.
Remember, in my last edit I proposed a compromise: 2 Romanians and 1 Hungarian references. Also I accuse the double standard promoted by Borsoka and some Hungarian editors: they agree some sentences in Romanian history pages but in Hungarian history pages they deny them. This is a double standard activity and the result is the errosion of the credibility of Wiki. For every "double standard" error that I protested Borsoka started editing wars. My opinion is that we have "double dealers" among editors. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I'm responding here to the agressive and false allegations that have just been brought to your attention about mya allegedly violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources. There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion by insulting comments. A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries). Thank you for your attention. Aerecinski ( talk) 10:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for bothering you over this again. I have filed a report on the editor again Report. I have no other way to handle this anymore, please help me out with this because only this user tries to promote propaganda and misinformation and restrict the information that doesn't fit his interests. I've never ever had this problem with anyone on Wikipedia before, even with people that I had disagreements with. My patience is over, and I cannot go on working and providing information with someone that keeps vandalizing and disrupts the development of the article. The user doesn't care about the Wikipedia rules, now he just tries to bend them in ways that will present his edits and vandalism as justifiable. You've been following the dispute so I think you are the most appropriate person to offer another opinion on the matter beyond my opinion. Thank you for your time and effort in helping with the article, and again I apologize for having to end up into this situation but I have found almost no ground for co-operation with this single user, and he is the only one who keeps creating problems and damaging the quality of the article. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 11:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
JianhuiMobile talk 13:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a hand here. I'm not asking you to agree with me or support me, but please help to deal with this mess because it is becoming pretty annoying and ugly. Report Page -- Tco03displays ( talk) 16:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, Callanecc. Considering you are one of the two people to Recuse themselves from Jclemens' Case Request, I would like to ask you if you agree that things should be looked into on a larger scale, outside of the Jclemens-28bytes issue. While it would be nice to bury the issue, I believe that on a potential scale, there might be quite a few users who should be looked into further. That includes myself due to my own actions in the debate, however small they are. However, if this should be done, I do not know if there is a place on Wikipedia for such a review. If you would do so, I would like to know your thoughts on this matter before I continue. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I believe blocked sock user:Newestcastleman has created a new account - /info/en/?search=User:Soccercitiesclubs.. could you please deal with it? Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
...I don't understand but, only know the user delete some text in particular it was already there. he should make a consensus not me. Thanks. -- Connie (A.K) ( talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Please unlock Boom Pictures page - so sources and references can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.210.230 ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc! A very Happy Belated Congratulations from me on becoming an administrator :) I had been very busy recently for the past few weeks and so missed the chance to support for you, but nonetheless I see that everything went good. Anyways, see you around and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Per, what I understand the current operating procedure to be, I am requesting that in your capacity as the clerk for this case that you remove the "Evidence presented by 74" section as it consists of no evidence but rather a generic statement. Pending no response from you within 48 hours of this request(either positive or negative), I do intend to appeal this request to the Clerks noticeboard as I feel that the statement consists of accusations of bad faith and an attempt to throw mud over what I understand the scope of the case to be. Hasteur ( talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So I've gathered some of the involved-parties-from-both-sides diffs. Are they necessary to add? I don't see the point of adding more usernames to the pile; all I want is a brief ruling that while the WMF still can exercise fiat-power over enWiki as the owners of the server-farm (but they do their best to nevah-evah-evah unless really crucial that they act), no such powers to overrule the five pillars exist in WP:PG, nor in any wikiproject traditional customs. Second question: maybe there is not the urgency, and this will stay open until the 29th? "The Committee is currently deciding what to do with the case." Emphasis added. I thought you meant, currently as in NOW... did you just mean, currently-and-through-the-29th? Danke.
74.192.84.101 (
talk) 14:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm very glad to see
this long time overdue. Thanx
Mlpearc (
open channel) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked
Fairmansay (
talk ·
contribs) as a sock of
Oldhand 12 (
talk ·
contribs). A few hours later,
Charleswang13 (
talk ·
contribs) was created to make the same reverts. Whether or not that deserves a block, or facepalm, or something else... I leave to your judgment.
bobrayner (
talk) 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to know the reason why BJP was fully protected for edit warring when it was relatively peaceful. I've asked the user who posted at the RPP the same thing here (no reply). The history shows just three users who have done some serious editing in the past few days...one is me (in fact I made a big blunder which the 2nd user pointed out and I promptly fixed it), then there is the 2nd user who is working on it and most recently, the 3rd who just undid one of their own edit. The only actual reverts were for some anons who kept blanking content, which was the reason I stepped in. Again I know this is silly but just wanted to know if I missed something and also there was that one user who was editing it daily who might be interrupted. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently copy edited and began watching Fairoz Khan. Pretty sure the subject is editing his own page. I noticed you blocked User:Fairoz.Khan_JK from Wiki editing; I wanted to bring it to your attention that User:Fairoz22khan has also started editing tat page and I'm pretty sure it's a sock puppet account. Any advice or help is appreciated. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc, I noticed you gave User:La Avatar Korra a warning for edit warring, and would just like to point out that they have now violated WP:3RR on Ariana Grande with this edit. Also I am pretty sure they have violated WP:3RR on Ariana Grande discography too. STATic message me! 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc, looks like it did not take very long for them to continue on the Ariana Grande. The user has now continued to edit war, reverting myself and another user. See [12]/ [13] and here where they reverted my two previous edits, still refusing to explain or discuss how it is significant or introduce evidence of coverage in independent third party reliable sources. Not to mention again making uncommented reverts about other content and not adhering to the manual of style (one sentence paragraphs?). STATic message me! 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I make this edition and the user feels my presence, reverses and seeks opportunity to harass me, the user just reverts my edits. He makes me uncomfortable. For example, why not search for consensus here or here?... Please!, the user just revert my edits, he chases me. OmG! Something help me!. Connie (A.K) ( talk) 05:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
has suggested a way of dealing with the Barleybannocks AE. You seem to be ignoring it and stepping over a solution and another admin. I'm wondering why. Perhaps I missed something. From the AE page:( Littleolive oil ( talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC))
Littleolive oil, given the evidence presented in this request, and my review of the situation, I do not think we can justify using the pseudoscience case remedies to institute the scheme you've suggested. If however, you or another editor agrees to keep me informed in a neutral, focused and concise manner, I will observe but not mediate the page to see if adminsitrative interference or even special measures are jstified. That is the best I will do at this point. As to Barleybannocks, I think a short (days, not months) but enforced break from the page could be good for both Barleybannocks and the editing culture on the page.--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone wants to be spared the indignity of a logged sanction, I think we should all be willing to grant it, with the explicit understanding that voluntary can quickly become involuntary. However, Barleybannocks would have to him or herself volunteer the same in clear terms. As to everyone else taking a break, I agree they should, but I lack clear evidentiary grounds to enforce that belief.--Tznkai (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
contribs • logs) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
As a junior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers. 1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions? 2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say? 3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support? Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia: Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia: David F. Haight, [14] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [15] Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”. [16] Adam Lucas, [17] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise." But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work: Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature. [18] Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today. [19] Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [20] Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [21] Rudolph E. Tanzi, [22] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [23] Neil Theise, [24] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [25] All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake. David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [26] Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [27] Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex A final point One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. [28] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [29] [30] [31] [32] Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content. I eagerly await your response. Thanks Barleybannocks ( talk) 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
|
I just wanted to bring to your attention that although Ariiise acknowledged editing while not logging in, he made no such admission about Fotohist. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
So you remember the block you handed out the other day..this is one of the first edits that was made upon expiry..[ [33]] which is basically a continuation of the warring and WP:OWN behaviors. This is an example of what it ended up looking like after a third party editor came in and rather nicely cleaned everything up [ [34]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callencc. I just protected Javidbinyousaf not seeing that you'd declined to protect it a minute earlier. I'm happy either way - if you want to remove the protection feel free. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please check my request for file mover rights at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover#User:Ctg4Rahat. - Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, what was it I was banned for (specifically)? Nobody seems to know. Barleybannocks ( talk) 20:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Any chance I can ask you to keep an eye on Hamady Brothers? Several IPs keep adding information that contradicts the article's sources, and this has been going on and off since July. If you see anything about Corn Flakes in a revision, revert on sight. I don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole forever with this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
proofs pls. 27.66.157.70 ( talk) 06:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi: I noticed that you marked this username as not being a blatant violation of username policy. Usernames do not have to be offensive to be blocked: some, like this one, are blockable under the heading of "Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia". Their first edit, which was obvious and deliberate vandalism, confirms this interpretation, making them a clear case for a {{ vaublock}}. Obvious and self-declared trolling accounts don't need to be given the benefit of the doubt. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw you protected a few files, like File:Adrienne Augarde01.JPG et al. The way you do it, you first add the text, including the protection template, and then add the protection itself. As a result, these files show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, because at the moment you save the file with a protection template which at that time is still incorrect, then later it doesn't automatically disappear when you actually protect the file. There are two ways to avoid this: protect first and add the protection template in a separate edit, or make a null edit after you protect the file. I suppose the latter possibility is the easiest. I'd appreciate it if you could do this from now on. Debresser ( talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Logical Cowboy ( talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JianhuiMobile
talk 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
JianhuiMobile talk 07:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate's intentionally violated your imposed 1RR on Rupert Sheldrake in spite of the fact the sources already in the article indicate that Sheldrake disputes the factual content of the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion. So why aren't you involving yourself here? jps ( talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
oops
![]() |
Holiday Cheer | |
Victuallers
talkback is wishing Cal' Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote
WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. -
Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same |
Hi Callanecc! I learned Hasteur reviewed the page I created and tagged it for speedy deletion. I am really a newbie when it comes to creating a wiki page so I'd like to understand how and why the wiki entry I submitted got deleted. I already followed the review notes the sure way I can, so I am not sure why it was understood promotional when every word I have in there defines exactly the topic. A little help from you in getting my wiki entry approved is very much appreciated. Thank you. Regiemacalam ( talk) 16:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we usually don't indef-semi user's talk pages if just a sock is hitting it. Something like 3 hours is usually good enough. Can I ask you to change the protection duration? Legoktm ( talk) 03:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Why Didi u deleted user:ItsSahilJain ..it was not an article just a user page that I have written about myself...may I recreate the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsSahilJain ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
December Notes from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page! The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! ![]() Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Message delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi, can you point me to the discussion about removing users' accountcreator right due to inactivity? This discussion is the last time I'm aware it came up. Thanks! — Bility ( talk) 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have warned Alfonzo Green ( [35]) following his particularly unhelpful outpouring on the Sheldrake talk page. His history shows strong evidence that he's here to Right Great Wrongs, and trying to restart the entire debate about whether MR is science or pseudoscience amounts to disruption, given the history. I suspect he will either go quiet again or end up at the enforcement requests page, this time with actionable evidence.
Your work on Sheldrake has been exemplary to date, and I thank you most sincerely. Refereeing this kind of argument is draining on any admin (BTDT), so do feel free ping me email to let off steam if you feel you're getting frustrated. Guy ( Help!) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Pratyya
(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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Pratyya (Hello!) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() I wish you a
Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! |
—
cyberpower Online
Merry Christmas 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs)
Adding time stamp to keep it from archiving - 12:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You deleted my report regarding vandalism by 115.188.196.130, saying they hadn't been warned. This is incorrect, you can see the warning on his talk page, unless he has deleted it in the meantime. Despite persistent vandalism over a long period of time and multiple reports against this user, nothing is done about it. Also, the obvious thing for you to do if you think that would be to warn the user, but you haven't bothered for some unexplained reason. I guarantee he will revandalize the page within 48 hours. This user is treating Wikipedia like a bunch of fools. There is no need to assume good faith with this user as his account is only used purely for vandalism. I don't see why it would be a problem to block this user. By allowing him to continue such vandalism you are just creating more work for myself and other Wikipedians and reducing the quality of Wikipedia. So you should at least send this user yet another warning, rather than just ignoring the problem and assuming you have solved anything. 101.117.106.110 ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
subst:uw-longterm}}
on their talk page and then revert if they continue to vandalise.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 05:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)User has, as predicted, revandalized that page and several others, and will continue to do so indefinitely until blocked. User has been warned yet again but will of course continue to ignore any and all warnings as they are well aware of the damage they are wilfully causing to Wikipedia and as you seem determined to assist him in his persistent vandalism. Apparently you seem to believe that as long as you only vandalize every couple of days it's no problem then. Very unhappy with the way you are "handling" this issue. 101.117.85.88 ( talk) 11:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Report at an3 concerning Rupert Sheldrake page Cardamon ( talk) 23:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have run a CU on the above-mentioned case, and have decided to unblock Alphama ( talk · contribs) as my findings concur with Reaper Eternal's.
Usually we do not block sock puppets outright unless they are clearly WP:DUCK (and when doing so, make it clear why). I know your mop is still shiny, so if you have any doubts do ask a fellow SPI clerk or CU for advice on the next step forward and we will be glad to help. :)
- Regards, Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I wrote to you before.
I am an anonymous user on this wiki. I will not create an account, because that is my right and I know how much that would ease the things.
I made a contribution on a talk page Kosovo War, however another user deleted my post, calling me a sock, simply because I have a wide range of IPs (not my fault though). http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=587497816&oldid=587497406
Anyway, my reverts of his reverts and so on and on......well, he deleted the sourced content, I engaged in edit-war with him here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kosovo_War&action=history
Mark Arsten showed up, locked the page, which is reasonable I guess, but only for anon users, not the registered ones, who made more damage. TaaTaa 109.106.234.94 ( talk) 14:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Reminding you of your notice of 21 December to User:Munir hussain1. He has continued to remove the article tags from Anusha Rahman on 23 December subsequent to your warning. There is an open complaint about him at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Munir hussain1 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you extend protection time of this article? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Callanecc, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. User:Wyatt150 responded to your conditions on his talk page in regards to an unblock. I figured I'd let you take a look first, but if not, I'll lift the block in the next couple of days. only ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Main. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Lukabri has agreed to your conditions for unblocking. Since you're offline, I'm going to post on my talk page, asking another administrator to look into it. — rybec 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Jianhui67
talk★
contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Jianhui67 talk★ contribs 09:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pratyya
(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! 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 Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
-- Pratyya (Hello!) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I realise that you're away on holiday, but I just wanted to bring to your attention another sock of Newestcastleman.
SportsGamer1 has been blocked already, but if you could please add to the SPI archive/tag etc., when you're free, I would appreciate it as I'm not entirely sure what to do. Happy New Year, JMHamo ( talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you seem to know about this topic. In reviewing some images on the commons I see the uploads of Krishnakant Arunkumar Mishra which have been put up for deletion as Out Of Scope but those images are used in the following 4 user pages: User:Ikkakm, User:Krishnakant Arunkumar Mishra, User:Krishna Arunkumar Mishra and User:Krishna Mishra A which I suspect are all the same person. Can you deal with it or advise me? Please drop me a talkback if you want me to take some action. Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 18:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you edited this on Dec 22; I tried to give someone a warning per the spec in the template:ds page, with: {{subst:Ds|topic=cc}} and got a blank page. Did your adding the signature stuff break the template? Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. The ip-hopping vandal on the protected Puntland presidential election, 2014 page is now vandalizing Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, one of the candidates in the race. Can you please intervene? Best regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
2013 Annual Report
The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the
January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Prompt and efficient.
Merci bien. Begoon talk 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Admin User:Mark Arsten is aware of the situation. I have sent him personal messages, so we'll see. This guy (the IP's user) is also harassing me now. So it has become more than just edit warring or what not. But I still appreciate you taking the time to review my complaint. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
After Mark protected the Inland taipan page because I discovered all his WP policy and guideline violations, he began to follow the pages I edit to try to attack my integrity. For example, Talk:Black_mamba. After all the work I did on it, went through a rigorous review and got upgraded to GA status he immediately went there to try to discredit my work. He is doing it on Snakebite too (look at the talk page there too, the very end). The issue is that the list of 10 most venomous snakes was left there by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an global administrator on here. But yet, he is going after me. That is harassement. It has become distracting to me. I have two GA noms that I need to begin my work on, but his constant reverting of anything he doesn't like or agree with and his veiled attacks on my integrity are so distracting that I have told the user who is reviewing both the articles I nominated to wait so I can deal with this. I don't believe this IP user will stop. It may not have been an ANI3 issue, but he should be blocked for reasons of first showing no care at all for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for following me around now because he's angered that I discovered his violations and making veiled attacks on my integrity should be enough grounds to block him. I told User:Mark Arsten, but have not told User:Jmh649 (Doc James). I think his edit summary remark like "you cannot remove a major source just because you upset your favorite snake (black mamba) isn't on it" ( diff) is a direct attack on my person. I hold two degrees that are related to the stuff I'm working on here. He's effectively trying to ruin my reputation as an editor with comments like that. That is not just harassement, but it is character assassination as well. He is just useless on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. He has wasted so much of my time and energy that I have even considered just giving up and quit working on the snake articles. It has become distressing to me and I don't know how to deal with it. I ignore him, but he follows me to wherever I edit. Now he reverted the snakebite page to the way he wanted it and I cannot do anything about it to correct it. It's just frustrating and difficult to deal with. Following me around is harassement - he is doing it out of anger at me for discovering his violations on the inland taipan page and having it subsequently protected. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC
Honestly, I don't think it is that complicated. It is like this: ask yourself what value does he have here on WP? Then answer to the question (I think you already know the answer to that). He is distracting a user (me) that is trying to put expand, improve and upgrade to GA status two articles at the moment (forest cobra and many-banded krait) - why? Because I have to deal with this IP user who is hell bent on "getting me back" for all the violations he committed, least of all the copyright vios. I have a short list you can look at (I can't list them all, way too many). He is clearly a troll, a vandal and he's trying to bait me into situations that can get me into trouble (but I am not stupid). It's just too much for any editor to have to deal with, while trying to work on the articles I need to work on. I enjoy expanding and improving snake articles, because it is my field of work. He's sucking the joy out of my experience here. It isn't fair. Not to me and not to Wikipedia as a whole, in my opinion. Something HAS to be done or else he won't stop, which means I won't be able to contribute because it is tiresome to deal with someone stalking your edits and following you around everywhere to argue. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 17:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead, if they confirm. Also make sure to explain how to get a username change. DS ( talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I once got blocked for simply suggesting on the Angelina Jolie talk page that a section on her mental health status should be made because her mental health has been in question since AT LEAST her father made that public plea for her to get psychological help for her "severe psychological problems". I got unblocked the same day, but that's all it took. This guy violates every policy in the book, follows me around and no action is taken at all. That isn't fair. I think. But I respect your opinion and I am only expressing my frustration at the situation. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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. |
The problem with barley's edits is that he asserts that his bias is neutrality, insists that his wording is a compromise between his wording and other people's, and the fact that he's a WP:SPA determined to Right Great Wrongs, having arrived after Sheldrake exhorted people to fix the "problem" of an article that accurately identified his ideas a s nonsense. The article needs stability and measured change, not edit warriors who represent their POV as the neutral POV, despite the very obvious fact that it isn't.
You know that SPAs usually have a deep commitment to a POV and there is an imbalance of motive between the SPAs and the rest of the community (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion).
I have asked barley to stop editing and instead achieve consensus on talk for changes he wants to make, in an attempt to avoid having to start banninating people for disruption.
I have by this time done quite a bit of reading on the background to the Sheldon problem, more eyes is always good, have you also researched the subject? Basically, Sheldon has advanced an unfalsifiable conjecture which essentially mirrors the claims of parapsychology, fair tests of his ideas are virtually impossible due to their largely untestable premises, and (the important bit) there is virtually no discussion of his ideas in the professional journals of the relevant field - the primary discussion of his ideas is by philosophers or people who criticise them. Sheldrake's response is to say that science is a set of dogmas (and invoke Kuhn, as every crank does). Comparison with quantum statistic mechanics is valid: QSM was viewed with suspicion and rejected outright by Einstein, but it prevailed because it was a more coherent and complete explanation of the observed facts than was strict determinism. Shedrake's ideas do not pass that test: they make sense only if you accept his base premises on faith.
The Chopra quote is telling: Chopra thinks he's building bridges between science and religion. You can't. They are non-overlapping magisteria, and increasingly scientists reject religion altogether due to the lack of coherent testable frameworks.
Barley is here to support Sheldrake, and that is orthogonal to Wikipedia's purpose. I have a lot of experience with contentious biographies, and I'ma n OTRS volunteer, so I am comfortable that when I judge the biographical element to be compliant with WP:BLP I am right. Barley doesn't seem to accept that, and wants to re-argue the case ab initio rather than build on what's already there by addressing specific issues. That's the problem I'm trying to manage. Guy ( Help!) 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlike Guy, who just complained about how angry he was to have wasted time on the 2012 book, I have not read any of the Sheldrake books. But I have spent a long time reading the wikipedia history of the involved editors. And I don't call the BLP "Sheldon" by mistake. Callanecc, I'm happy to fill you in on the backstory if you like, but methinks you alone (no offense) won't be able to calm things down. The problems of warring will stay persistent, if there are only a small number of people involved. It has been a battleground since July or August, with hundreds of kilobytes of talkpage discussion, all leading nowhere.
Suggestion: can we bring in a bunch -- like a couple dozen -- randomly selected editors, and have short time-limited byte-limited discussions about each paragraph in the article, from top to bottom, repeat as needed until NPOV is achieved? That seems more likely to generate progress, but the last time somebody asked for outside input, they got hammered for allegedly canvassing. Your hands are probably clean enough that you can get away with recruiting, if you use
PRNG to select the victims helpers. :-) —
74.192.84.101 (
talk) 23:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to understand how Barleybannocks has been disruptive on the talk page, Callanecc ( talk. I'm interested in this page primarily regarding the recently declined ARBCOM case, especially regarding the harassment of editors. What it looks like to me is that one group of editors will provide challenging argumentation and just because they are arguing, it's considered disruptive. Is arguing on a talk page disruptive? If it is, arn't all sides disrupting the talk page? From my POV, I see Barleybannocks ( talk) just making argumentation - and if it gets heated, it's because there is a lot of harrassment from one side of the editors to the other. 23.241.74.200 ( talk) 22:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, the Tumbleman sockpuppet you just blocked made an appearance in this thread, and you replied to him/her. Admins have called Tumbleman "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", etc. [3] Would it be OK to {{ hat}} all of Tumbleman's comments at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake? Allowing the comments to stand would seem to reward this continued block evasion behavior. Actually I would rather delete the comments altogether, or at least the ones with no response. vzaak 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation in this edit. The decline did seem odd, and out of character for you, and it is reassuring to know that you didn't intend it. That damned problem of the number of sections changing before you click "Edit" is very easy to be caught by, and as a matter of fact, just before dealing with that request, I myself had almost been caught out by it on another request. I just noticed as I was about to click "Save". JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I looked into this person a bit more and found conclusive evidence for the additional socks
The contributions have the same ranting style and are in the same areas of orthomolecular medicine, vitamin C, organic food, plus an odd fixation on anti-Semitic conspiracies. [7] An SPI doesn't seem worthwhile since the accounts are already blocked, but since you were recently exposed to these rants I thought you might be curious. vzaak 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I've unsemiprotected since the trade is now official. I trust that this is okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cheers, thanks for your help with the Attack on Golden Dawn page, the edit war management and the cleaning up of the mess the article has created. Very appreciated. Tco03displays ( talk) 10:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC) |
Just wanted to know what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Is this, [8], [9], [10], acceptable? Barleybannocks ( talk) 11:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to have you helping out at RFPP! Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the assistance with my name change issue. :) JamesG5 ( talk) 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs)
Yes, of course he can be unblocked. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting the Jane Kim article. The same editor under different names has been vandalizing it. I was going to complain to official channels but you nipped it in the bud. Chisme ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
You once gave me one of these for running down the backlog at WP:RPP; permit me to return the favour. Nice work. Yunshui 雲 水 15:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) |
I have a few questions for you since you were the one to close the Move request for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. To start with the question that is bugging me the most, why would closing the debate with no consensus have the article remain the same page name? You mentioned it, but you didn't explain why that is the case when WP:NOCONSENSUS exists. The second is about the rough consensus, namely how is there a consensus for not moving the article if you count the oppose and support !votes? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me editing your userpage. Jianhui67 talk★ contribs 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you reset pending changes settings? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If you close a RM discussion with {{ RM top}}, than you don't need to sign it, because the template does that automatically. 84.0.247.141 ( talk) 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
About Origins of Romanians. Please read again Wikipedia's policy on edit. I always entered reliable references. You got involved in a nationalistic approach of some Hungarian editors:
1. They denied a well known byzantinolog Alexandru Elian without adding opposing references.
2. They declared my references as "original work" !!!
3. They denied their Hungarian historyan Moravcsik.
Please read again motivations from talk pages and you will understand that some editors work against Wikipedia's policy. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is very simple to take a look: Read here: http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/alexiada.pdf (at page 253) Anna Comnen clearly describes Dacians around Haemus mountains. A lot of Romanian historians saw this. This is why I proposed a compromise. Moravcsick was a translator and influenced a large part of readers. Comnen used "Hungarians" term only in connection with Panonia.
Remember, in my last edit I proposed a compromise: 2 Romanians and 1 Hungarian references. Also I accuse the double standard promoted by Borsoka and some Hungarian editors: they agree some sentences in Romanian history pages but in Hungarian history pages they deny them. This is a double standard activity and the result is the errosion of the credibility of Wiki. For every "double standard" error that I protested Borsoka started editing wars. My opinion is that we have "double dealers" among editors. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I'm responding here to the agressive and false allegations that have just been brought to your attention about mya allegedly violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources. There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion by insulting comments. A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries). Thank you for your attention. Aerecinski ( talk) 10:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for bothering you over this again. I have filed a report on the editor again Report. I have no other way to handle this anymore, please help me out with this because only this user tries to promote propaganda and misinformation and restrict the information that doesn't fit his interests. I've never ever had this problem with anyone on Wikipedia before, even with people that I had disagreements with. My patience is over, and I cannot go on working and providing information with someone that keeps vandalizing and disrupts the development of the article. The user doesn't care about the Wikipedia rules, now he just tries to bend them in ways that will present his edits and vandalism as justifiable. You've been following the dispute so I think you are the most appropriate person to offer another opinion on the matter beyond my opinion. Thank you for your time and effort in helping with the article, and again I apologize for having to end up into this situation but I have found almost no ground for co-operation with this single user, and he is the only one who keeps creating problems and damaging the quality of the article. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 11:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
JianhuiMobile talk 13:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a hand here. I'm not asking you to agree with me or support me, but please help to deal with this mess because it is becoming pretty annoying and ugly. Report Page -- Tco03displays ( talk) 16:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, Callanecc. Considering you are one of the two people to Recuse themselves from Jclemens' Case Request, I would like to ask you if you agree that things should be looked into on a larger scale, outside of the Jclemens-28bytes issue. While it would be nice to bury the issue, I believe that on a potential scale, there might be quite a few users who should be looked into further. That includes myself due to my own actions in the debate, however small they are. However, if this should be done, I do not know if there is a place on Wikipedia for such a review. If you would do so, I would like to know your thoughts on this matter before I continue. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I believe blocked sock user:Newestcastleman has created a new account - /info/en/?search=User:Soccercitiesclubs.. could you please deal with it? Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
...I don't understand but, only know the user delete some text in particular it was already there. he should make a consensus not me. Thanks. -- Connie (A.K) ( talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Please unlock Boom Pictures page - so sources and references can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.210.230 ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc! A very Happy Belated Congratulations from me on becoming an administrator :) I had been very busy recently for the past few weeks and so missed the chance to support for you, but nonetheless I see that everything went good. Anyways, see you around and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Per, what I understand the current operating procedure to be, I am requesting that in your capacity as the clerk for this case that you remove the "Evidence presented by 74" section as it consists of no evidence but rather a generic statement. Pending no response from you within 48 hours of this request(either positive or negative), I do intend to appeal this request to the Clerks noticeboard as I feel that the statement consists of accusations of bad faith and an attempt to throw mud over what I understand the scope of the case to be. Hasteur ( talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So I've gathered some of the involved-parties-from-both-sides diffs. Are they necessary to add? I don't see the point of adding more usernames to the pile; all I want is a brief ruling that while the WMF still can exercise fiat-power over enWiki as the owners of the server-farm (but they do their best to nevah-evah-evah unless really crucial that they act), no such powers to overrule the five pillars exist in WP:PG, nor in any wikiproject traditional customs. Second question: maybe there is not the urgency, and this will stay open until the 29th? "The Committee is currently deciding what to do with the case." Emphasis added. I thought you meant, currently as in NOW... did you just mean, currently-and-through-the-29th? Danke.
74.192.84.101 (
talk) 14:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm very glad to see
this long time overdue. Thanx
Mlpearc (
open channel) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked
Fairmansay (
talk ·
contribs) as a sock of
Oldhand 12 (
talk ·
contribs). A few hours later,
Charleswang13 (
talk ·
contribs) was created to make the same reverts. Whether or not that deserves a block, or facepalm, or something else... I leave to your judgment.
bobrayner (
talk) 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to know the reason why BJP was fully protected for edit warring when it was relatively peaceful. I've asked the user who posted at the RPP the same thing here (no reply). The history shows just three users who have done some serious editing in the past few days...one is me (in fact I made a big blunder which the 2nd user pointed out and I promptly fixed it), then there is the 2nd user who is working on it and most recently, the 3rd who just undid one of their own edit. The only actual reverts were for some anons who kept blanking content, which was the reason I stepped in. Again I know this is silly but just wanted to know if I missed something and also there was that one user who was editing it daily who might be interrupted. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently copy edited and began watching Fairoz Khan. Pretty sure the subject is editing his own page. I noticed you blocked User:Fairoz.Khan_JK from Wiki editing; I wanted to bring it to your attention that User:Fairoz22khan has also started editing tat page and I'm pretty sure it's a sock puppet account. Any advice or help is appreciated. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc, I noticed you gave User:La Avatar Korra a warning for edit warring, and would just like to point out that they have now violated WP:3RR on Ariana Grande with this edit. Also I am pretty sure they have violated WP:3RR on Ariana Grande discography too. STATic message me! 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc, looks like it did not take very long for them to continue on the Ariana Grande. The user has now continued to edit war, reverting myself and another user. See [12]/ [13] and here where they reverted my two previous edits, still refusing to explain or discuss how it is significant or introduce evidence of coverage in independent third party reliable sources. Not to mention again making uncommented reverts about other content and not adhering to the manual of style (one sentence paragraphs?). STATic message me! 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I make this edition and the user feels my presence, reverses and seeks opportunity to harass me, the user just reverts my edits. He makes me uncomfortable. For example, why not search for consensus here or here?... Please!, the user just revert my edits, he chases me. OmG! Something help me!. Connie (A.K) ( talk) 05:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
has suggested a way of dealing with the Barleybannocks AE. You seem to be ignoring it and stepping over a solution and another admin. I'm wondering why. Perhaps I missed something. From the AE page:( Littleolive oil ( talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC))
Littleolive oil, given the evidence presented in this request, and my review of the situation, I do not think we can justify using the pseudoscience case remedies to institute the scheme you've suggested. If however, you or another editor agrees to keep me informed in a neutral, focused and concise manner, I will observe but not mediate the page to see if adminsitrative interference or even special measures are jstified. That is the best I will do at this point. As to Barleybannocks, I think a short (days, not months) but enforced break from the page could be good for both Barleybannocks and the editing culture on the page.--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone wants to be spared the indignity of a logged sanction, I think we should all be willing to grant it, with the explicit understanding that voluntary can quickly become involuntary. However, Barleybannocks would have to him or herself volunteer the same in clear terms. As to everyone else taking a break, I agree they should, but I lack clear evidentiary grounds to enforce that belief.--Tznkai (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
contribs • logs) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
As a junior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers. 1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions? 2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say? 3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support? Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia: Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia: David F. Haight, [14] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [15] Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”. [16] Adam Lucas, [17] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise." But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work: Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature. [18] Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today. [19] Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [20] Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [21] Rudolph E. Tanzi, [22] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [23] Neil Theise, [24] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [25] All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake. David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [26] Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [27] Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex A final point One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. [28] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [29] [30] [31] [32] Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content. I eagerly await your response. Thanks Barleybannocks ( talk) 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
|
I just wanted to bring to your attention that although Ariiise acknowledged editing while not logging in, he made no such admission about Fotohist. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
So you remember the block you handed out the other day..this is one of the first edits that was made upon expiry..[ [33]] which is basically a continuation of the warring and WP:OWN behaviors. This is an example of what it ended up looking like after a third party editor came in and rather nicely cleaned everything up [ [34]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callencc. I just protected Javidbinyousaf not seeing that you'd declined to protect it a minute earlier. I'm happy either way - if you want to remove the protection feel free. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please check my request for file mover rights at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover#User:Ctg4Rahat. - Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, what was it I was banned for (specifically)? Nobody seems to know. Barleybannocks ( talk) 20:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Any chance I can ask you to keep an eye on Hamady Brothers? Several IPs keep adding information that contradicts the article's sources, and this has been going on and off since July. If you see anything about Corn Flakes in a revision, revert on sight. I don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole forever with this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
proofs pls. 27.66.157.70 ( talk) 06:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi: I noticed that you marked this username as not being a blatant violation of username policy. Usernames do not have to be offensive to be blocked: some, like this one, are blockable under the heading of "Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia". Their first edit, which was obvious and deliberate vandalism, confirms this interpretation, making them a clear case for a {{ vaublock}}. Obvious and self-declared trolling accounts don't need to be given the benefit of the doubt. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw you protected a few files, like File:Adrienne Augarde01.JPG et al. The way you do it, you first add the text, including the protection template, and then add the protection itself. As a result, these files show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, because at the moment you save the file with a protection template which at that time is still incorrect, then later it doesn't automatically disappear when you actually protect the file. There are two ways to avoid this: protect first and add the protection template in a separate edit, or make a null edit after you protect the file. I suppose the latter possibility is the easiest. I'd appreciate it if you could do this from now on. Debresser ( talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Logical Cowboy ( talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JianhuiMobile
talk 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
JianhuiMobile talk 07:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate's intentionally violated your imposed 1RR on Rupert Sheldrake in spite of the fact the sources already in the article indicate that Sheldrake disputes the factual content of the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion. So why aren't you involving yourself here? jps ( talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
oops
![]() |
Holiday Cheer | |
Victuallers
talkback is wishing Cal' Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote
WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. -
Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same |
Hi Callanecc! I learned Hasteur reviewed the page I created and tagged it for speedy deletion. I am really a newbie when it comes to creating a wiki page so I'd like to understand how and why the wiki entry I submitted got deleted. I already followed the review notes the sure way I can, so I am not sure why it was understood promotional when every word I have in there defines exactly the topic. A little help from you in getting my wiki entry approved is very much appreciated. Thank you. Regiemacalam ( talk) 16:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we usually don't indef-semi user's talk pages if just a sock is hitting it. Something like 3 hours is usually good enough. Can I ask you to change the protection duration? Legoktm ( talk) 03:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Why Didi u deleted user:ItsSahilJain ..it was not an article just a user page that I have written about myself...may I recreate the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsSahilJain ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
December Notes from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page! The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! ![]() Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Message delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi, can you point me to the discussion about removing users' accountcreator right due to inactivity? This discussion is the last time I'm aware it came up. Thanks! — Bility ( talk) 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have warned Alfonzo Green ( [35]) following his particularly unhelpful outpouring on the Sheldrake talk page. His history shows strong evidence that he's here to Right Great Wrongs, and trying to restart the entire debate about whether MR is science or pseudoscience amounts to disruption, given the history. I suspect he will either go quiet again or end up at the enforcement requests page, this time with actionable evidence.
Your work on Sheldrake has been exemplary to date, and I thank you most sincerely. Refereeing this kind of argument is draining on any admin (BTDT), so do feel free ping me email to let off steam if you feel you're getting frustrated. Guy ( Help!) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Pratyya
(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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Pratyya (Hello!) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() I wish you a
Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! |
—
cyberpower Online
Merry Christmas 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs)
Adding time stamp to keep it from archiving - 12:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You deleted my report regarding vandalism by 115.188.196.130, saying they hadn't been warned. This is incorrect, you can see the warning on his talk page, unless he has deleted it in the meantime. Despite persistent vandalism over a long period of time and multiple reports against this user, nothing is done about it. Also, the obvious thing for you to do if you think that would be to warn the user, but you haven't bothered for some unexplained reason. I guarantee he will revandalize the page within 48 hours. This user is treating Wikipedia like a bunch of fools. There is no need to assume good faith with this user as his account is only used purely for vandalism. I don't see why it would be a problem to block this user. By allowing him to continue such vandalism you are just creating more work for myself and other Wikipedians and reducing the quality of Wikipedia. So you should at least send this user yet another warning, rather than just ignoring the problem and assuming you have solved anything. 101.117.106.110 ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
subst:uw-longterm}}
on their talk page and then revert if they continue to vandalise.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 05:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)User has, as predicted, revandalized that page and several others, and will continue to do so indefinitely until blocked. User has been warned yet again but will of course continue to ignore any and all warnings as they are well aware of the damage they are wilfully causing to Wikipedia and as you seem determined to assist him in his persistent vandalism. Apparently you seem to believe that as long as you only vandalize every couple of days it's no problem then. Very unhappy with the way you are "handling" this issue. 101.117.85.88 ( talk) 11:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Report at an3 concerning Rupert Sheldrake page Cardamon ( talk) 23:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have run a CU on the above-mentioned case, and have decided to unblock Alphama ( talk · contribs) as my findings concur with Reaper Eternal's.
Usually we do not block sock puppets outright unless they are clearly WP:DUCK (and when doing so, make it clear why). I know your mop is still shiny, so if you have any doubts do ask a fellow SPI clerk or CU for advice on the next step forward and we will be glad to help. :)
- Regards, Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I wrote to you before.
I am an anonymous user on this wiki. I will not create an account, because that is my right and I know how much that would ease the things.
I made a contribution on a talk page Kosovo War, however another user deleted my post, calling me a sock, simply because I have a wide range of IPs (not my fault though). http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=587497816&oldid=587497406
Anyway, my reverts of his reverts and so on and on......well, he deleted the sourced content, I engaged in edit-war with him here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kosovo_War&action=history
Mark Arsten showed up, locked the page, which is reasonable I guess, but only for anon users, not the registered ones, who made more damage. TaaTaa 109.106.234.94 ( talk) 14:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Reminding you of your notice of 21 December to User:Munir hussain1. He has continued to remove the article tags from Anusha Rahman on 23 December subsequent to your warning. There is an open complaint about him at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Munir hussain1 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you extend protection time of this article? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Callanecc, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. User:Wyatt150 responded to your conditions on his talk page in regards to an unblock. I figured I'd let you take a look first, but if not, I'll lift the block in the next couple of days. only ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Main. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Lukabri has agreed to your conditions for unblocking. Since you're offline, I'm going to post on my talk page, asking another administrator to look into it. — rybec 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Jianhui67
talk★
contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Jianhui67 talk★ contribs 09:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pratyya
(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! 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 Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
-- Pratyya (Hello!) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I realise that you're away on holiday, but I just wanted to bring to your attention another sock of Newestcastleman.
SportsGamer1 has been blocked already, but if you could please add to the SPI archive/tag etc., when you're free, I would appreciate it as I'm not entirely sure what to do. Happy New Year, JMHamo ( talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you seem to know about this topic. In reviewing some images on the commons I see the uploads of Krishnakant Arunkumar Mishra which have been put up for deletion as Out Of Scope but those images are used in the following 4 user pages: User:Ikkakm, User:Krishnakant Arunkumar Mishra, User:Krishna Arunkumar Mishra and User:Krishna Mishra A which I suspect are all the same person. Can you deal with it or advise me? Please drop me a talkback if you want me to take some action. Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 18:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you edited this on Dec 22; I tried to give someone a warning per the spec in the template:ds page, with: {{subst:Ds|topic=cc}} and got a blank page. Did your adding the signature stuff break the template? Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. The ip-hopping vandal on the protected Puntland presidential election, 2014 page is now vandalizing Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, one of the candidates in the race. Can you please intervene? Best regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
2013 Annual Report
The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the
January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Prompt and efficient.
Merci bien. Begoon talk 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Admin User:Mark Arsten is aware of the situation. I have sent him personal messages, so we'll see. This guy (the IP's user) is also harassing me now. So it has become more than just edit warring or what not. But I still appreciate you taking the time to review my complaint. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
After Mark protected the Inland taipan page because I discovered all his WP policy and guideline violations, he began to follow the pages I edit to try to attack my integrity. For example, Talk:Black_mamba. After all the work I did on it, went through a rigorous review and got upgraded to GA status he immediately went there to try to discredit my work. He is doing it on Snakebite too (look at the talk page there too, the very end). The issue is that the list of 10 most venomous snakes was left there by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an global administrator on here. But yet, he is going after me. That is harassement. It has become distracting to me. I have two GA noms that I need to begin my work on, but his constant reverting of anything he doesn't like or agree with and his veiled attacks on my integrity are so distracting that I have told the user who is reviewing both the articles I nominated to wait so I can deal with this. I don't believe this IP user will stop. It may not have been an ANI3 issue, but he should be blocked for reasons of first showing no care at all for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for following me around now because he's angered that I discovered his violations and making veiled attacks on my integrity should be enough grounds to block him. I told User:Mark Arsten, but have not told User:Jmh649 (Doc James). I think his edit summary remark like "you cannot remove a major source just because you upset your favorite snake (black mamba) isn't on it" ( diff) is a direct attack on my person. I hold two degrees that are related to the stuff I'm working on here. He's effectively trying to ruin my reputation as an editor with comments like that. That is not just harassement, but it is character assassination as well. He is just useless on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. He has wasted so much of my time and energy that I have even considered just giving up and quit working on the snake articles. It has become distressing to me and I don't know how to deal with it. I ignore him, but he follows me to wherever I edit. Now he reverted the snakebite page to the way he wanted it and I cannot do anything about it to correct it. It's just frustrating and difficult to deal with. Following me around is harassement - he is doing it out of anger at me for discovering his violations on the inland taipan page and having it subsequently protected. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC
Honestly, I don't think it is that complicated. It is like this: ask yourself what value does he have here on WP? Then answer to the question (I think you already know the answer to that). He is distracting a user (me) that is trying to put expand, improve and upgrade to GA status two articles at the moment (forest cobra and many-banded krait) - why? Because I have to deal with this IP user who is hell bent on "getting me back" for all the violations he committed, least of all the copyright vios. I have a short list you can look at (I can't list them all, way too many). He is clearly a troll, a vandal and he's trying to bait me into situations that can get me into trouble (but I am not stupid). It's just too much for any editor to have to deal with, while trying to work on the articles I need to work on. I enjoy expanding and improving snake articles, because it is my field of work. He's sucking the joy out of my experience here. It isn't fair. Not to me and not to Wikipedia as a whole, in my opinion. Something HAS to be done or else he won't stop, which means I won't be able to contribute because it is tiresome to deal with someone stalking your edits and following you around everywhere to argue. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 17:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead, if they confirm. Also make sure to explain how to get a username change. DS ( talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I once got blocked for simply suggesting on the Angelina Jolie talk page that a section on her mental health status should be made because her mental health has been in question since AT LEAST her father made that public plea for her to get psychological help for her "severe psychological problems". I got unblocked the same day, but that's all it took. This guy violates every policy in the book, follows me around and no action is taken at all. That isn't fair. I think. But I respect your opinion and I am only expressing my frustration at the situation. -- DendroNaja ( talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)