User talk:Callanecc

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Callanecc. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Callanecc ,I apologize about my behavior, but seeing cases of vandalism all the time in the page "List of countries by Military Strength Index", I had decided to ensure the page, meanwhile I want to thank you because you did the right thing protecting that page, I would like ask please Supervise the data from Credit Suisse, many Vandals have did confusion with other data of other page of less importance like Global fire page, Credit Suisse also makes the ranking every year (or perhaps every two years),Thank you!.--LuigiPortaro29 03:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 (talk • contribs)

You were very lucky not to have been blocked given how long you were edit warring and that you have been warned about it before, LuigiPortaro29. Added to this, the edit you were reverting over would likely not be classed as vandalism, as they aren't an intentional effort (made in bad faith) to damage the encyclopedia. You made no effort to communicate with the IP you were reverting which is against the spirit of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. If you find yourself in another edit war you need to stop reverting and try to discuss the matter with the other edit (either on the article's talk page or on the other person's talk page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It has been going on for four days and between them they broke the 250 Revert Rule :D _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Joyce

Why have you blocked an IP (i.e. me) while Hillbillyholiday, who has a history of disruptive editing, is free to arbitrarily remove a long-standing sourced section without consensus.109.145.33.161 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're admitting you are blocked user 86.184.245.27? And what "history of disruptive editing" would that be? Who are you? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 14:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You were close to being blocked earlier this month and you also edit via the IP sock User:73.96.114.128. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.33.253 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite my moniker, I've never been to America. But whatever, file a SPI, fill your boots. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem edits

Hello Callanecc, could you please check the recent edits at Australian House of Representatives? Thanks JennyOz (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi JennyOz, I've reverted their edits, looks like they are continuing the thing they have about the seat of Herbert (which is held by Labor according to Parliament's website). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I have no idea who to talk to about this, but it looks like the sub-text that shows up on Google when searching for Wikipedia is a little outdated. It says that Wikipedia has over 2.1 million articles, which is technically true, but having 5.2 million there instead would be more accurate. I assume administrators have the ability to edit that text, but if not I hope you can pass this on to someone that can. Thanks! —Atvelonis (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this edit. Too many contributors were too excited about the "news" cycle's preoccupation with phony allegations in the name of balanced coverage. The talk page has multiple discussions of that section, which I raised as probable defamation early on. At this point, no reliable sources are paying attention to the conspiracies, so maybe there will be no attempt to restore the deleted section via talk page consensus. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you hide my contribution on the Machado talk page? ("Article doesn't contribute to Wikipedia's true purpose")

Hi -- Why did you hide the section I wrote on the Alicia Machado/talk page, headed "This article, as it currently stands, does not contribute to Wikipedia's true purpose," as well as close the discussion? I was not posting a "general" discussion of the subject, nor Wikipedia; rather I was giving the specific rationale for including some of the specific, disputed info on A. Machado. I would ask that you unhide my comment. Bruiserid (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The intent was to further the discussion that would improve the page, and to give a rationale for the changes proposed. Bruiserid (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bruiserid thanks for asking about it. I collapsed the section as there were no proposed changes in there and so does not suggest something to actually change but instead a meta-discussion about the theory behind changing the article. Engaging in respectful discussion about specific changes to the article is absolutely important and I encourage you to do so, but make sure you know the related policies before you do (particularly WP:BLP). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Callanec -- thanks for the quick reply. I think discussing the rationale for changing the article is as important, or more so, than detailed, proposed changes (although I mentioned them: use some of the many RS'd references to the legal troubles in Venezuela and to the associations with Mexican narco-traffickers; put them together with the balance of no conviction in Venezuela and whatever questions exist on Machado's baby's paternity; weight the graf appropriately.) If we don't discuss why we believe these inclusions are important on the talk page accompanying the article, where *do we discuss it? As to BLP and NPOV, I've read a lot about them, any number of times, as the first article I ever edited was poor old Brian Williams! There was *lots of conflict on what should be in and out on that page! But we went ahead and argued it out. There's not much arguing here, with respect . . . the clamps are on the article, and then on the subsequent discussion. I guess that's the way it goes . . . but where *would we discuss it? Best, Bruiserid (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So the way to effectively have the discussion is that rather than mentioning your proposed changes suggest the changes in their own section so that others can comment and we can get the article changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Machado's sexual behavior on "La Granja de los Famosos"

Please explain why you felt it necessary to delete an entire section discussing Machado's behavior on "La Granja de los Famosos". It dealt directly with the accusations Donald Trump leveled at Machado recently, namely that she was a porn star and made a sex tape. The links I suggested for the article show just how flimsy Trump's claims are. Also she has become an important person associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign. The links I provided were Telemundo, Snopes and New York Magazine, thereby not violating WP:BLP. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)