User talk:Callanecc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Notice If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please see User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me.


Regarding my Gun Control TB[edit]

Am I allowed to respond regarding WP:AE#Sue Rangell or do I have to ask permission first? If so, what is the procedure? I just discovered that I'm being mentioned in this proceeding. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, per my request during the ARE, can I continue to edit specific firearm articles such as Remington Model 1858, Remington Model 1875, and Winchester rifle? I have also been asked if this applies to the rest of the topic blocked Editors. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, another question. Is this type of activity considered a violation of a topic ban [1] when an Editor intends to bring an edit to the attention of a non-topic banned Editor per this comment, "Oh, and I already beat you to clipping my watchlist - about an hour ago. (^_^) The only ones I kept are ones that aren't gun-control related, and maybe 12 gun-control related ones that get vandalized sometimes. If that happens on a gun-control related article while my ban is in force, I will bring it to the attention of someone who has permission to fix it."
--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It depends if what you respond to violates your topic ban. If it does then you aren't allowed to comment. I'd rather not grant an exemption as I don't see a need for you to comment.
Yes you are able to edit those articles as long as what you're editing isn't what you're banned from.
I've left a message for Lightbreather regarding that. Also if you believe it's a violation of the topic ban then you shouldn't be repeating or mentioning it as that in itself would be a violation. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was more concerned with aiding Sue Rangell with her defense as I feel that the new ARE is much like many of LB's other attempts, ill thought out and will result in little (if any) positive outcome.
  • OK and as I understand the scope of the ban, editing factual information about a firearm would not violate the ban. Although, I can see where editing certain firearm articles would be problematic such as Assault Weapon or potentially AR-15 and AK-47 as those are considered "assault weapons".
  • So if I understand your warning, reporting a violation of a topic ban is considered a violation in itself?
--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that'll be too much of a problem. It looks like it's going to be closed with no action against SR pretty soon anyway.
  • As I understand the arbitration remedy that's correct.
  • Yes, as to report it you would be violating your own ban.
Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So if I notice a violation, like I did above, I can't do anything about it without getting myself in trouble as well? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • See WP:BANEX. You can't report it because by reporting it you are not abiding by your ban, the point of which is to get you to avoid the area all together. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I see the logic in it. So the assumption is that Wikipedia is then dependent on the User community to assist in enforcing a topic ban. OK, fair enough, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion help[edit]

This has been proposed for deletion but the categories does not reflect and say July 4 deletion page does not exist, and also the time is expired.--Vin09 (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When you removed the tag the category was removed, readding the old tag confused it somehow. Anyway I've deleted it per the PROD. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you--Vin09 (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My article on WP has been deleted by from, without any discussion. How to restore it? Thanks 141.2.133.173 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Arturlazarian

Hi Arturlazarian, please log into your account. You can request undeletion at WP:REFUND. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection of a talk page[edit]

Hello Callanecc! I've seen that you've semi-protected cold fusion talk due to an apparent disruption due to an IP. I think you should have blocked that IP 84.106.. who apparently caused the disruption instead of discriminating legitimate IP comments from posting there.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been disruption on that talk page for a long period of time from a number of different IP addresses. It is unfortunate that is prevents all people editing from an IP from contributing to the talk page but that is unavoidable. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you be so kind to provide evidence of these accusations?84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit warring and disruptive editing by you would be the most recent example. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be funny? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

I started a discussion on the clerks' talk page,[2] but EdJohnston suggested that I talk with you.

In a nutshell, re my topic ban: I've read the "Result" subsection several times now, and my question is: Was the ban based on edit warring with the other editor who was banned, or was it based on something else, or edit warring and more? (As I told Ed, whether or not I will appeal my ban depends on what I was banned for. If it was only for edit warring, then I won't appeal at this time. But if it was for something other than edit warring or in addition to edit warring, then I will appeal.)

Re: Sue's case, I don't want to appeal that decision but I would like to clarify the scope of the warning she received to focus on content, not on contributors. (For instance, does it apply to edit summaries?) I've read WP:TBAN and WP:BANEX several times now, and substituting "weather-related" with "gun-control related" - I think that's an allowable request. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(In fact, her warning was more about a behavior than a topic, so the request for clarification is about behavior, not a topic. Does the warning apply to her edit summaries?) Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You were sanctioned for edit warring against Scalhotrod yes. The reason for that edit warring was also related but that wouldn't have mattered if you hadn't been edit warring.
Asking about someone else's sanction in an area you are topic banned from doesn't fall under the provisions of WP:BANEX which is about your own ban not anyone else's. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Callanecc. Then I won't need to bother with an appeal at this time. However, would you please append the first sentence of the hat for the topic ban re: me and my fellow warrior: "for edit warring at National Rifle Association"?
And, could you append after "warned" in the hat for SR's warning, "for incivility" or "for personal attacks"?
(These would both be similar to the hat in the request above mine.)
--Lightbreather (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading your last reply, I feel the need to return and ask a direct question: Am I allowed to file a request for clarification on SR's warning? Although the original request (my request) in that case was related to edits in a subject area from which I am now temporarily banned, the result for SR was a warning for incivility/personal attacks, and not simply in one subject area - if I'm reading it right. My request for clarification is not related to her edits on specific subject pages, but on all of her edits. Therefore, may I file a request for clarification? I feel I may have that right for three reasons. 1. The original ARE was mine. 2. Although SR was not banned, she was warned about incivility. 3. I was harassed on-wiki on May 19, and off-wiki on July 10. (Both events have been reported.) Without (that is to say, I am not) accusing SR specifically of these incidents, the fact remains that I have been harassed, which falls under Wikipedia civility policies. I respectfully ask you to please advise. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Since it's already been archived I'd rather not make any changes and as I wasn't the one who closed the request and I don't see that it will achieve anything as one just has to look at the warning itself.
Filing an amendment or clarification on another user's sanction is generally not advised as there is no real point to it. If you were to file a request regarding it you wouldn't be able to mention anything in the field from which you have been banned. The other issue is that if you were to mention the AE request regarding SR you might be blocked as the request itself is covered by the discretionary sanctions you were requesting be enforced. This will be particularly the case if you're filing is believed to be pointy or disruptive. Personally I'd suggest you just drop the stick and move on. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. 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, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear violation?[edit]

I am not rushing to comment on ACE but saw this. Looks to me as if a user wanted to add an infobox, but didn't know how to that properly. Andy helped, no? Clear violation? Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, however my interpretation of the restriction is that they are no permitted to add an info box regardless of what was there before. That is if the user had inserted an infobox the restriction wouldn't apply but adding the infobox means that the restriction has been breached. My commenting rather than just blocking was so that this could be discussed, and I'll clarify that in my comment. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The user added the infobox, he just failed to format it well. It looks like he saw other articles but didn't know that a template needs to be invoked. Andy did that for him. - If that is "adding an infobox", I am afraid that formality rules in a way that is not helpful. I like to bring good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree to some extent though I think my initial one week block was a bit harsh. My opinion is still that Andy added an infobox but we'll see how other admins define the restriction. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
We are again at the point where we take expressions more or less literally. "Create an article", I was taught, means turn a red link blue, not add more than 80% of content, see Polish Requiem. Who created that article if not I? - Who adds an infobox, the one who adds the content or the one who formats it, helping (!) the other and Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
We are indeed, which is why I've asked for more opinions. That's a question for us to answer to AE. Then we get into the language of creating and expanding. And also the example of changing a redirect into an article, as it was already a blue link when later turned into an article. Anyway questions for AE if not ArbCom. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am beyond my voluntary restriction to two comments in a discussion ;) - You didn't succeed in convincing me that helping another user and Wikipedia should be sanctioned. How about a bit more AGF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the early unblock, the article is now a Good article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done! Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
said so, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what are the chances of another exemption to the TBAN? I would like to try and work on few userspace drafts. I will obviously not be moving them to mainspace until such a time as you figure the TBAN can be lifted. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If you wait another 2 or 3 weeks I'd very likely lift it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool, it will take that long at least to get this to GA status, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

enrolment of town[edit]

As u know that karnal sher kaly is the big town and the oldest town commiti of swabi distric kpk but it still not the part of Google earth and weather forecast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.253.213 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi 39.33.253.213, Wikipedia has no control and isn't related to Google Earth or weather forecasts so I can't help you. If you're referring to a Wikipedia page can you please give me the web address or the exact title of the page so I can look into it further. Thank you, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Any way to get priority on an SPI?[edit]

Can you look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi, or let me know if there is any way to raise the priority of this report? The sock farm involved have been disruptively !voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzad Ali Najmi, and I'd like to be able to weed out the invalid comments for greater clarity in the discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: If you add at least one diff or point to a blatant pattern of editing for each account and request checkuser (change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|CURequest}}, that's probably going to be the fastest way. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for responding, and for your related actions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, please help me[edit]

Callanecc and Lord Roem, I have been sick for a few days, and the old dog I inherited from my son and DIL (after their last baby was born) has been, too, and this is what I see going on upon my return:

SH - [3][4]

SR - [5][6][7][8]

The whole discussion: Gone silent?!?

Is this acceptable behavior? That first one of SR's really bothers me. I am no paid advocate for anyone, nor a volunteer advocate for anyone for that matter. Do I edit in an area that is important to me? Yes! Like the majority of WP editors, I imagine. Don't you?

I am so tired of being talked about like this... but I really don't want to be driven off. I just want other editors like these two to quit speculating about me and trying to brand me. Is there no way to get editors to quit talking about others like this without evidence?

I thought about using some formal process to report this, but I am so tired. And feeling a bit queasy in my stomach like I did last fall when I first reached out to SR for help.

Please, please help.

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)