User talk:Callanecc

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right

@L235: Thank you both for taking the time to close this discussion. I had an inquiry in regard to the close. The RfC stated "This RfC is not for discussing the software technicalities of the proposed right." and furthermore discouraged discussion with "Alternative proposals: Please start your own RfC rather than detracting from this one to make your point." It also stated "Technical Permission Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached." and "Script and Tool Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached." Isn't an RfC needed to consult the community about those aspects of the proposal?— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading your question properly, yes they do need to be considered in an RfC, just not that one. That is, consensus was needed that something needed to be done but exactly what that was was going to be discussed later (if there was support that something needed to be done). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: Hello! Sorry for the incredibly late reply; I read the ping but it got drowned out by other notifications. To expand on what Callanecc said: I think there's no other way to read the consensus or the RfC; the minimum possible technical changes to be done to implement broad consensus are to: Remove the (patrol) permission from the Autoconfirmed group, the Confirmed group, and the Pending changes reviewers group; create a new user group Patrollers (localization name: "New Page Reviewers"); give the new New Page Reviewers group the (patrol) permission; and give administrators the ability to add or remove membership for users to the New Page Reviewers group. If you want to make more changes than that (e.g. change access to Twinkle or to any special page – which we did not see consensus for), please feel free to file another RfC, but the broad support for the original proposal to "ensure that users are suitably experienced for patrolling new pages" by creating a new user right compels these minimum technical changes. Please let me know if you have more questions, and I will do my best to answer them more promptly than this one, heh.

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error

There's an English problem in the second sentence of the last paragraph of this edit. I'm not sure whether "the the" should be "for the" or "to allow the" or something else.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sphilbrick, fixed. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in motion

In my comments at the motion about removal of advanced permissions, I mentioned a typo (in passing), but it probably got lost in the rest of what I wrote. In the procedure for permanent removals, the sentence "The motion shall be proposed as the most appropriate location..." should have "as" changed to "at". I figured there is no point in my writing more about such a minor thing at the comments page, so that's why I am leaving this message here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Kimberley Kitching

Hello! Your submission of Kimberley Kitching at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Iistal

I don't want to overreact so I thought I would first check with you. Is this edit a violation of the TBAN? The article is about a magazine, but the edit pertains to a living person. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Is there a way to delete or make my account disappear?

User talk:Madsalty