User talk:Callanecc
![]() | Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries. | ![]() |
This is Callanecc's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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, 28Auto-archiving period: 32 days ![]() |
![]() | If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please read User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me. |
![]() |
![]() | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages is appreciated. |
0RR appeal
Hi, I would like to ask you to remove the 0RR imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([1]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([2]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert, I received 0RR again for edits in the Povilas Plechavičius article. ([3]).
I have since tried to continue editing Wikipedia without making reverts. Basically, it seems to me that given my entire editing history since March of this year, I have proven myself to be a user who tries to avoid conflicts, and if they arise resolve them on the talk page. I understand that the issue of the revert on Povilas Plechavičius casts a shadow over my track record. But given that it was an isolated incident I hope it doesn't completely cross it out. Marcelus (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Marceles, after only a month I'm not comfortable reducing 0RR to 1RR given that it was imposed by a fairly strong admin consensus. If we were a couple months into the future that might be different. Having said that, I've absolutely no issue with you appealing it at AE or AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will probably do that Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Now at AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, saw that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
RFC
Hi. I followed your advice and did an RFC on whether the UN information on violence against civilians during the recent hostilities should be included or not in the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. The overwhelming community consensus was that the UN information should be included, and it was restored to the article. Now we have the same argument in the related article 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh. Should I do another RFC on pretty much the same thing? To me it looks like a waste of community time to do repeated RFCs on the same topic in related articles. Grandmaster 10:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Grandmaster, given the consensus was in favour of inclusion and it's a similar article it would make sense for there to be an assumption to include it. Other editors might have concerns about including it in that particular article or concerns that aren't the same as those discussed originally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is clear that the vast majority of users did not agree with any objections to inclusion of this information. So even if objections are made on different grounds this time, I don't think this can override the overall community consensus that this information is relevant to the articles on this topic. Grandmaster 11:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thanks for all your good work. Andre🚐 19:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
Prague shooting
Hiya Callanecc,
I would just like to ask why you’ve locked editing of the 2023 Prague mass shooting page, as any vandalism has been quickly dealt with to my information. And I believe that I, to the best of my ability, have managed to include reliably sourced information at a consistent rate. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t lock the page, I’m just asking why.
By the way, my username is Getsomehelp1962. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, unless the name is widely reported in reliable sources we generally don't include it. At this stage there were a number of edits being added with information which is either unsourced or rely on limited sourcing. I'm expecting that the sources will Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&Fowler
Hi Callanecc. You had closed the last ARE report about User:Fowler&fowler because he had "taken on the advice provided by a number of editors".[4] But right now, Fowler&Fowler is causing even more disruption than what he did at that time.
- See his personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS:
- "essentially without content unless some kind of lame parody is their goal.[...] you should take all of them to AN for disruption and ask that they be topic banned. [...] vote yourself and explain your vote and then resist the temptation to engage these disruptive editors."[5]
- "also keep WP:Civil POV pushing in mind. This seems to be the latest tack of India-POV editors."[6]
- "such are the numbers of India-POV editors on Wikipedia these days that very little NPOV content on India survives."[7]
- Bragging how he never gets sanctioned and challenging people to report him,[8] as if he won't stop until he is actually sanctioned.
- Unnecessarily commenting on people's coherent English when they are discussing the content.[9][10]
- Badgering almost every comment.[11][12][13]
- Unnecessarily demanding people to ask them to "list all" their sources[14][15][16] when they have already provided a bunch,[17][18] and the article itself article also offers many of them on "aftermath" section.
- I believe this is clear-cut bigotry because none of my sources were from "Old Delhi" but he is clearly attempting to demean my cited scholarly sources (which are actuallly from Odense University Press,[19] Routledge,[20] and Columbia University Press[21]) by citing an Indian locality as if it is something very bad. Location does not even matter when it comes to identification of reliable sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Word limit extension request
Hi Callanecc. KU removed[1] some of his statements to add an additional reply in AE. I also have very important detail to say, but I don't want to do the same, because it will meaningfully change my initial reply. Can you please provide a few additional words for a reply? Aredoros87 (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Someone who likes train writing
You can't block this user! He's done nothing wrong! 611fan2001 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @611fan2001: Have a look at the dot point on "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts at WP:GHBH. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's not true. Here's the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larrysteamfan#c-Larrysteamfan-20231226192200-Callanecc-20231225060400 611fan2001 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the technical evidence doesn't lie in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's not true. Here's the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larrysteamfan#c-Larrysteamfan-20231226192200-Callanecc-20231225060400 611fan2001 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc. I hope you're doing well. I am pinging you here as you were in the recently active CU list and the article Dhiman which is currently on AfD is being restored with unsourced content. Do you think there's enough evidence on this SPI to request a CU? Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Jeraxmoira, sure is. I've blocked both accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- This will help stop the WP:DE for a while, Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Chirstmas
![Christmas postcard featuring Santa Claus using a zeppelin to deliver gifts, by Ellen Clapsaddle, 1909](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Zeppelin_Christmas_postcard_1909.jpg/600px-Zeppelin_Christmas_postcard_1909.jpg)
You stated that my contributions to the mediation demonstrate a WP:BATTLE mentality, linking to Third statement and Fourth statement. May I ask that you clarify which part(s) of those constituted holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, carrying on ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear. Crash48 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that you've only quoted the first sentence of WP:BATTLE, it also says Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Those two statements demonstrate that you (and Rsk6400) did that, see for example the section Robert McClenon collapsed. Additionally your eleventh statement also quite clearly demonstrates a battleground mentality, for example "I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations...", "I suggest to Rsk6400 to use his last chance to engage in a discussion...". Engaging in discussion where you have a focus on 'winning' and instead of discussing content you focus on the conduct of other editors isn't compatitible with the collaborative nature of the project. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- In my fourth statement, I don't see anything at all related to the conduct of other editors, and I stated on Dec 6th that I don't understand why it was collapsed. I still don't. Crash48 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what I saw in the fourth statement. Potentially I was looking at one of the others and thought it was the fourth one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that you don't see a demonstration of battleground mentality in my fourth statement. Now, regarding my eleventh statement that you mentioned above: do you mean that desperately urging an editor to engage in a discussion of the content (left out from your quote above) goes against the policy telling us to engage in a discussion of the content? What, in your opinion, would be proper conduct when a party joining a mediation refuses, over the course of a month, to engage in the discussion of the disputed content? Crash48 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- In my fourth statement, I don't see anything at all related to the conduct of other editors, and I stated on Dec 6th that I don't understand why it was collapsed. I still don't. Crash48 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Questions
Would it be alright if I ask for your advice here on how best to handle situations as relates to the arbitration enforcement?
And am I still able to make a single revert in the WP:BRD steps? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah you can. Here are a couple examples which will hopefully help, the second one is that instance:
- You add a sentence to an article, another editor reverts it. You can't add that sentence back until there is a consensus.
- An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus.
- Does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)