User talk:Callitropsis

My talk page

How can we get my talk page protected ASAP as well as get that dolt of an IP blocked? He has been reported, and I have already requested page protection... ugh. I hope an admin gets to it soon. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: I'm not sure if there's really much that can be done. Adding a note to the AIV report would probably get your talk page protected more quickly, at the very least. — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Did that too.... O.O — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose all that's left to do is hunker down for the next few minutes and spam that rollback button :/ — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Royal enfield

I had a 22’ re Himalayan. Had turn signal assemblies (5) that fell apart completely in their housing and a clutch that shut the bike off at random intervals, all within 1200 miles. I know what i am talking about, called re 10 times and went to the dealership many times to get it fixed. Is this a impartial forum or for fanboys of the company with biased opinions? 2601:1C0:C802:1B40:A5AE:A7:588:2226 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for reaching out! Unfortunately, your experience constitutes original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must cite reliable sources, especially regarding potentially controversial statements that are likely to be challenged. If you can find one that supports your assertion, feel free to add it to the article. Alternatively, I'd be happy to add it myself if you can send me a link or something. Thanks! — SamX [talk • contribs] 19:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for a compassionate, well-reasoned comment on what is shaping up to be one of the most difficult, emotional ArbCom cases the community has ever had. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! :) I debated whether or not to even post anything because a) I really don't have any stake in this, b) I generally try not to comment on behind-the-scenes drama, and c) I haven't even had time to read the linked article. (GIS is a lot of work!) I decided to post because it seemed like not many people were discussing the real-world implications of this case beyond injuries to Wikipedia's reputation as an impartial source, in addition to the actions of a certain banned user. This is understandable, since Wikipedians form an insular, mostly anonymous community with arcane customs and idiosyncracies that's little-known to the general public. This makes it very easy to forget that Wikipedia is in the real world, and that what we do here has very real consequences, whether we're aware of them or not. I try to remind myself of this whenever I edit. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice work reporting all the "Bbb23 exposed" vandals–as I sit and watch as the AIV backlog grows and grows–even if it's past midnight! Tails Wx 05:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It's the easiest, most boring thing I've done all week. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reporting 37 IPs...I do agree! Tails Wx 05:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen this many entries at AIV. I suppose I could've just reported the ranges, but oh well... — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. 40 reports...something should be done at this point. Are admins at 12:15AM EST awake when this is English Wikipedia? I do see a few but I'm not sure if they're checking the noticeboards! Tails Wx 05:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to have stopped for the time being, so I suppose it isn't really as urgent anymore. At this point I'm mostly concerned about their potential status as open proxies, and annoyed that I could've been doing homework instead of dealing with this nonsense. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned about their timing, since they can come back anytime, or maybe they're just taking a short break and they'll come back when they think we're offline, or they think we are...It's getting late, I might as well head to bed very soon, so they'll catch me off-guard first!...but they'll probably not recognize me as I haven't reported any of the vandals. And yes, homework is better than dealing with lots of IP vandals! Tails Wx 05:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, Materialscientist has dealt with the IP vandals! Tails Wx 13:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on Conjecture

Hello, SamX, and congratulations on your recent promotion. You seem to be a person that chooses your words carefully enough, a good trait. Seeing as you reverted a change that I made, I'd like to pick your brain in good faith, if you'd care to respond.

In recent years on Wikipedia, I have seen an increasing number of articles changed, charged with contemporary cultural and political rhetoric, which worries me very much. Rather than sticking to relevant and utilitarian information, some will inject upsetting conjecture into otherwise well written works.

Written in the Wikipedia encyclopedic style, these edits have the veneer of impartiality without the sauce. Think about a dog, editing the "cats" page to add a section about their viruses (all of which are contagious to humans!), under the heading "Health". Unfortunately (and luckily) these edits seem to only hit articles of contemporary issue.

I would like very much for Wikipedia to continue to be a useful and entertaining tool, but the more I see these sections, the more I head to other websites.

You have been here a long while, and have been imbued with new power. What do you think about what I have said? Eyemotions (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eyemotions: Thanks for reaching out, and welcome to Wikipedia! I unfortunately don't have time to compose a thoughtful, well-worded response to your question, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can. In the meantime, feel free to check out Help:Introduction, if you feel so inclined. Wikipedia can be confusing to newcomers and difficult to navigate at times, and the link I've provided is a decent overview of some of the core principles that Wikipedia follows, and has some useful information about how editing works. The Teahouse is also a great place to ask questions, and a good resource for new editors. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eyemotions: Before I get into the heart of this reply, I'd like to clarify that getting the reviewer permission wasn't really a promotion. Being a pending changes reviewer isn't an endorsement of my aptitude as an editor, and it's not a badge of honor or anything like that. It simply means I've read and understand some of Wikipedia's core policies, and I'm willing and able to review edits by new users to pages with pending changes protection, such as the one you made. It's really more of a tool than a job title.

Judging by your message, your perceptions of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia's scope and purpose are, broadly speaking, correct. Verifiability and no original research are core content policies here and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which many inexperienced editors don't realize. Content must be written from a neutral point of view and supported by reliable sources. With that being said, Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of what has been published in reliable sources. It also isn't a paper encyclopedia, and therefore isn't limited by constraints limited by the print format. Articles can and should give due weight to any and all widely accepted facts or opinions about any given topic that are documented by reliable sources, with some exceptions.

For example, Wikipedia's article on JK Rowling, which has been identified as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, details the controversies that have arisen from her remarks about transgender people. It isn't bare-bones biographical information, but it's been extensively covered by reliable sources, so Wikipedia can and should include information about said controversies. However, she's more well-known for her work as an author, which is accordingly given more attention in the article about her. Inserting a long paragraph about her views on the LGBT community right at the start of the article would constitute undue weight, and would violate Wikipedia policy.

Similarly, the under-representation of women and minorities in congress is a well-documented historical phenomenon that is supported by reliable sources. Of course, that doesn't mean that content is set in stone. The paragraph that you removed, while encyclopedic, could be supported by more inline citations to reliable sources. You could also start a discussion on the article's talk page if you think the section should be altered, trimmed, or moved to another part of the article. Since it's a pretty high-profile article, any comments posted to the talk page would would likely get attention from other editors.

I hope that was helpful. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have, although I'm pretty busy with college courses right now and probably wouldn't be able to get back to you very quickly. You'd probably get a quicker response at the Teahouse, which is a venue specifically dedicated to answering questions from new editors. Again, thanks for reaching out! — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for YOU!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hey there SamX! I've seen your hard work in the community with reverting anti-vandalism, and I'd like to give you a barnstar for that. Keep it up! / Best regards, RemoveRedSky / (u) (t) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello SamX,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Samx

correct mw CAHDI Party1 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@CAHDI Party1: I'm not sure what you're asking me. Could you please be more specific?

Also, it seems like you have a conflict of interest. Generally, you should avoid editing in topic areas where you have a conflict of interest, except to request edits on the article's talk page. Further, your username is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've replied at the user's talk page since they seem to be having trouble finding mine. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Koko Taylor

I removed the below message in quotes from the wiki page because she was my grandmother and this has nothing to do with her legacy and all her accomplishments. "In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service said that Taylor owed $400,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest, for the years 1998, 2000 and 2001. In those years combined, her adjusted gross income was $949,000."

Please remove 2600:8800:8F0A:900:9173:675C:626D:E2CA (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed it for now, as it likely constitutes undue weight. Do keep in mind that editing in areas that you have a conflict of interest is frowned upon, though. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article, but I have found one and added it for you. Please try and remember to include sources yourself with future edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 06:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm not sure what you mean; could you please be more specific? I didn't actually add the loan to DC United to the article; that was done by an IP. All I did was fix the link to DC United so that it linked to the proper article and add a period to the end of the sentence. I only edited the page because I encountered the edit during RC patrol, as football (not to mention sports in general) isn't an area of interest for me. I'm well aware of WP:RS, WP:BLP, and related policies, so I did a quick Google search to confirm that O'Brien was sent on loan, saw that the loan was mentioned with RS later in the article, and figured the edit was legit. I see now that the sources listed at the time only discussed a reported signing, so I suppose I could've been more thorough in checking the sources especially considering it's a BLP. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But the loan was NOT sourced when you edited. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Fair enough. From my reading of WP:BLP, the unsourced information didn't seem like it was challenged or likely to be challenged since it doesn't involve any claims of wrongdoing (or something else that would likely be seen as controversial) and it's been well-documented by news outlets. Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. Since I came across the edit during RC patrol, I'm also curious as to whether I should immediately revert any unsourced addition to a BLP, controversial or not, which is something I do most of the time. In this case, I figured it was fine since I was able to verify the addition with a quick Google search, so I decided to close the tab after making a few quick copyedits and return to Special:RecentChanges to keep a lookout for more urgent problems. I promise I'm not trying to wikilawyer or be vexatious here; I really would appreciate feedback. — SamX [talk · contribs] 13:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realize that my actions violated the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. From now on, I will revert any unsourced change to BLPs I see while on RC patrol, just to be safe. Thanks for the heads-up. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

@SamX, please notify the creator of the Peter Hehir article, which is 69.230.132.62, about the recent PROD of that article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: You're correct that it's generally best practice to notify the creator when PRODing, but this case is unusual because the article was created by an IP in 2005. (IPs haven't been able to create articles since December that year.) The IP currently geolocates to Detroit, and whoever used that IP in 2005 seems to have mostly edited in the topic area of Australian film and television. Given this, and the way ISPs work, it's very unlikely that whoever is using that IP address is the same person who used it 17 years ago, so there's really no point in posting a notice on the IP's talk page. See Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@SamX, you did a good job explaining why it’s unusual. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: No problem :) You also don't need to ping people when you leave messages on their user talk page, since they'll receive a notification whenever someone edits their talk page. See Help:Notifications for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Help me

hey! I need some help from you. One user again reverting my edits without any specific reason and saying "Block evading sock" Bruhh is here (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

if you don't want help, please suggest who can help me @SamX Bruhh is here (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bruhh is here: It looks like you commented on the SPI case page, which is a good start. Aside from that, there's not very much you can do. If you haven't created your account to evade a block against policy, the CheckUser will determine that you're not a match for the other account and you'll be free to continue editing, although some more experienced editors may have some feedback for you that you should take into account. If you have created this account after being previously blocked, this account will be blocked as well. Hope that helps. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't make this account after any block. I created this account when Wikipedia suggest I edit as an editor after donation. Thank you for your guidance. Bruhh is here (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I'm sorry. My siteban proposal at ANI was tone-deaf, poorly conceived, and needlessly escalated an already fraught situation. I've long been frustrated to see chronic disruption occur on this site despite intervention from administrators, ArbCom, and the community (I'm not referring to TRM in particular here; I don't have any strong feelings about him other than regret that I needlessly made his life more difficult), but I lacked the insight and self-awareness that to understand that my kneejerk reaction would do nothing but generate even more of the toxicity that I'm so frustrated about. The world would be a nicer, happier place right now if I'd stayed in my lane and hadn't meddled in a mess that I wasn't involved in. I'm not asking for forgiveness or anything, and I acknowledge that many editors will (justifiably) remain frustrated with me and disgusted with my comment at ANI and the mess that followed. I accept that this very statement will probably be viewed by some as attention-seeking and unnecessarily self-flagellating. As I've written on my user page, I value accountability and I always welcome feedback and constructive criticism, so feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, ping me, or use some other means to get my attention if you think there's something I could be doing better, and I intend to honor that. Anyone is welcome to frankly and candidly share their opinion here on my talk page—I view criticism and feedback as vital to personal growth, and I clearly have some growing to do. Or don't. It's nobody's responsibility to explain to me where I went wrong when it's been clearly articulated by several people on ANI already. Consider this a self-trout. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Howdy! Just stoppin' by to thank you for the assist in the whole Reference Expander debacle on Sub-Saharan Africa. Slog barely begins to cover it, haha. It's appreciated! ~Judy _{(job requests)} 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks to you as well :) I'm not the best at writing articles (although it's something I've been working on), so I try to help out wherever else I can. When I saw on AN that there's a huge heap of references that need repairing, it seemed like the perfect thing to gnome away at. — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fairly Representing the Socialist View of Democracy Isn't Biased -- It's Accurately Representing Marginalized Viewpoints under a Capitalist Editorial Bias

I respectfully disagree. The content you preserved and allowed to stay, while deleting and seemingly destroying mine, is capitalist, Western propaganda -- absolutely not at all neutral in itself, although superficially presented as such to feign credibility and manufacture consent to its subjective, biased presumptions. The goal is to discredit the socialists who started this attempted revolution, to misinterpret and censor their point of view, to smear them as anti-democratic, to misunderstand and suppress the alternative approach to democracy that socialists pursue, and to allow only one perspective -- that of the capitalist ruling class and of its system of liberal democracy -- and not multiple ones. Nor even an accurate understanding of socialist approaches to democracy. Fairly and accurately describing socialists' views, instead of reflexively spouting false Western, capitalist propaganda to smear them, isn't a violation of neutrality -- it's the pursuit of it, up against a clear editorial bias on your part. The one viewpoint allowed is absolutely not at all neutral, but instead dramatically biased in favor of capitalism, against the left, and against the working class. That you chose the right-wing, capitalist point of view completely unaltered over a neutral, fair analysis of the views of socialists as democratic revolutionaries simply reveals your own bias against socialism, and any of its potential democratic bona fides and merits. I was in the process of incorporating my source when you just deleted and destroyed my work. Under the pretense of objectivity, neutrality, and a diversity of viewpoints, you attack and destroy the work of those with differing perspectives from the US, neoliberal and liberal establishment. How is this scandalous, absolutely biased and ideological behavior on your part allowed with impunity -- with no debate and no accountability on Wikipedia? Please return to me the work I produced, and I will re-upload it with the sourcing -- which I was in the middle of doing when you just deleted it. What's more, in the end, this one paragraph of non-capitalist/non-right-wing propaganda added to this article simply offers an additional perspective on this crucial history that is fair to and actually understands the motivations of the socialist revolutionaries who were the main protagonists. It complements and rounds out the obviously biased, right-wing viewpoint of the so-called "objective" narrative in the remainder of the article. The entire goal of uploading it was to do exactly what you claim to want to do -- offer a fair, accurate account and incorporate multiple perspectives. If having multiple viewpoints and ideological balance is the goal, then your unilateral censorship of accurate, fair representations of socialist ideology has the exact opposite effect of this ostensible objective -- it allows right-wing views while suppressing left-wing ones. This right-wing ideological censorship masquerading as objective truth is beneath the intellectual standards, and poorly serves the readers, of Wikipedia. 2601:19C:4480:3090:AD1D:AABA:6624:21B7 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've replied on the IP's talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I've replied again with a more thorough response in case the editor who posed the above comment is monitoring this page, but is using a different IP address. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Khalistan movement

First of all, many thanks for helping out with the ReferenceExpander debacle! I was skimming the list and happened to notice that Khalistan movement appears twice: a decrease by 290 on 13 January that was reverted, and then a decrease by 440 on 14 January. I think your cleanup means that we can check both appearances off the list, but I wanted to make sure. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware that there had been two edits to that page with ReferenceExpander. I recognize some of the references in the second diff but not all of them, so I'll have a look to see if I missed anything. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I just checked, and everything looks good to go. The references that I didn't repair were apparently removed along with the text cited to them sometime after Philoserf used ReferenceExpander. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Revdel at lung cancer

Thanks so much for getting to this while I was distracted ... most appreciated ... I would have gotten back there eventually but glad I didn't have to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) I've been dipping my toes into CopyPatrol recently since it seems like it's a much better use of my time than standard RC patrol, and I'll probably start working on CCIs pretty soon. I've worked a fair amount on the ReferenceExpander cleanup and CCI seems like it has a similar vibe. — SamX [talk · contribs] 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Arash Avin

Hi i solved problem about arash avin i wrote , and i rewrite with any copy right, please check thank you , if have any problem please tell me i solve asap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/arash_Avin Kiava (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)