User talk:Callanecc

Help request: IP blocked

Callanecc you blocked my IP address? The message is reprinted below. Can you help me unblock my IP address and recover my password? Thanks. jacobst

For 136.2.32.185 talk block log logs filter log Jump to navigationJump to search This IP address is currently partially blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

09:48, 1 August 2020 Callanecc talk contribs blocked 136.2.0.0/18 talk from editing the pages BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Houston, Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, Swaminarayan Sampradaya, Pramukh Swami Maharaj and Mahant Swami Maharaj with an expiration time of 6 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swamifraud) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.32.185 (talk) " It's written extremely poorly and has nothing to do with the article. Vallee01 (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines sections are not blanked from article talk pages except in very specific circumstances such as obvious vandalism. Instead, on Wikipedia, we archive these talk pages. When and how to archive decisions are decided by consensus rather than individual editors so it will need a discussion on the article talk page. Given that there are already a couple discussions happening at the moment it's better to wait until that's finalised before proposed conditions for archiving so you can all focus on the content of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh sock

User:JoinOnIn, one of the socks of User:Hoggardhigh mentioned in this SPI has resumed activities, the signature forcing of the Oxford comma being the most characteristic trait. Would you be happy to block them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Already been done by someone else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to get back to you, to that effect. That said, they have resumed activity under their latest IP, User:179.53.1.202, from the expected geolocation for the sockmaster. Could you extend the block to the IP please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries and done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Popped up now at User:201.229.238.196. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

...User:200.88.239.42 Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you extend the block please: User:179.53.1.202? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Khalji Dynasty

Hello, you were the admin who blocked the people committing vandalism on the Khalji dynasty article,you asked me to notify you when something else happens. There is another person (or perhaps it’s a sock ?) who does almost the same reverts and removed all the sourced information, his name is User:CrashLandingNew he has already done more than 6 reverts in less than 24hrs I believe. Please also protect the article so only people with 500+ edits can edit it. Best regards Xerxes931 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also placed a comment on the talk page and i would appreciate if you could explain the sources that you have used in the first and second paragraphs in the origin section. Also User:W28394 has reverted the article again here [[1]] and [[2]] . He and you are accusing me of having another account which is very serious without proof.

Also referenced information has been removed and i will surely challenge your words in relation to the origin section of the article. ThankyouKami2018 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry please file a sockpuppet investigation report. It looks more like a normal content dispute for which dispute resolution should be considered. CrashLandingNew has made two reverts in 24 hours, successive reverts without someone else in between only counts once. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerns in relation to the Block

I have a concern here in relation to the block that has been applied against my account for the article Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Khalji dynasty etc. I have not written even a single line in the article without reference. I strongly disagree to the block and would request the article to be reverted to the original referenced information. You have to look at the history of the article and edit warring performed by User:W28394 who is being supported by User:Xerxes931 to portray khiljis as Afghans when they were Turkic. Please read the detail below

CONCERNS: Lets look at the introduction here: Information before changes made by User:Xerxes931:

The Khalji or Khilji dynasty was a Muslim dynasty which ruled on the Delhi sultanate, covering large parts of the Indian subcontinent for nearly three decades between 1290 and 1320. References entirely ignored or removed by User:Xerxes931 :

Information written by user: The Khalji or Khilji dynasty was a Turko-Afghan dynasty which ruled on the Delhi sultanate, covering large parts of the Indian subcontinent for nearly three decades between 1290 and 1320. Completely ignored the original content of the references.

Now coming to the origins section here : [[3]]

First Paragraph: Statement added by User:Xerxes931:"They were treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate during the reign of the Khalji Sultanate."

1st Reference states: They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India

2nd Reference states: But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks."

3rd Reference states: The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court.

Second Paragraph The user has intentionally removed the referenced information to fit his agenda :

Statement written by user which is actually an opinion not fact: The modern Pashto-speaking Ghilji Pashtuns are also descendants of the Khalaj people

Reference States: According to Ahmad Hasan Dani, the modern Pashto-speaking Ghilji Pashtuns are also descendants of Khalaj people; their transformation into an ethnic Pashtun group can be dated to earlier than the 16th century. After a number of ethnic transformations, the Pashtun Khalaj became the Ghilji tribe of Pashtuns.

Statement written by user: Habib theorizes that the earlier Persian chroniclers misread the name "Khalchi" as "Khalji" . He also argues that no 13th century source refers to the Turkish background of the Khalji.

Reference states: Habib theorizes that the earlier Persian chroniclers misread the name "Khalchi" as "Khalji", but this is unlikely, as this would mean that every Persian chronicler writing between the 13th and 17th centuries made the same mistake. Habib also argues that no 13th century source refers to the Turkish background of the Khaljis, but this assertion is wrong, as Muhammad ibn Najib Bakran's Jahan-nama explicitly describes the Khalaj people as a "tribe of Turks" that had been going through a language shift.

He has removed the following last statement which is referenced:

The accounts describing the Khaljis' rise to power in India indicate that they were regarded as a race quite distinct from the Turks in late 13th century Delhi.Over the centuries, the Khaljis had intermarried with the local Pashtuns and adopted their manners, culture, customs, and practices.They were looked down as non-Turks by Turks. Therefore, in the Delhi Court, the Turkish nobles wrongly looked upon them as Afghan (Pashtuns).

Please look at the references and the information that this user has tried to input is entirely misleading. Same goes for Hindkowans and Jalal-ud-din Khalji which has been reverted by the User:W28394 and he was blocked for edit warring on the pages before.

References

• Whether or not you were correct in your edits and whether the version of the article is the version you prefer is largely irrelevant in this instance. The issue, and the reason for your block, is that you were edit warring rather than discussing on the talk pages and getting consensus for the changes you wanted to make

Ok but please see below by the User:Xerxes931 here ? [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] here [[8]] he was warned by the user for his non-constructive edits.

and few by the [[User:W28394]] below [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]]

here [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] this user was warned and asked not to revert the article as most people agreed to the previous version.

here [[20]] this user was blocked and he started seeking help from User:Xerxes931 here he reverted the article again even though he was blocked [[21]] [[22]].

here [[23]] i sent him a warning to not engage and i provided all the references.

Clearly, these users were involved in edit wars and they kept on reverting the changes if you look at the article history. This can be verified by users such as User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, User:NavjotSR, User:Anupam whom he has been involved in edit war with. ThankyouKami2018 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Before complaining about other editors reverting you, you need to have be actively involved in discussion of the issues on the talk pages of affected articles especially when the other editors have been involved. For example at Talk:Jalal-ud-din Khalji, W28394 responded to your comment in August and you haven't responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but if you look at the talk page here [[24]] you would see how big of an issue this discussion was and not once but the whole talk page is about the origin of the Khilji dynasty and still these two users ignored all the concensus achieved earlier and added the wrong information. here[[25]] he provided the argument with his own beliefs whereas i was writing everything from the references. So now how can i win an argument or even continue arguing if the person is not willing to change his opinion according to the references. He has reverted the changes again here today [[26]]. Can this user be blocked or how do i move forward on this ? Kami2018 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• You need to get consensus for the changes you want to be made on the talk page of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Return of 3Oh Hexelon sock

Looks like there’s a fourth sock: user:SturdyNotebook. Within hours of me reverting 3Oh Hexelon on the page 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, User:SturdyNotebook makes an account and the only edits he makes are on that page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you protect that page too. There’s a lot of sockpuppetry on that page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

CU says they're not related but I've semi protected the article for a few months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Dutton

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Dutton, you may be blocked from editing. Template:Z188 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Typing this up would be so much less frustrating if you were new here. Firstly, you accused me of vandalising Wikipedia - please consult vandalism types to confirm you are incorrect. Perhaps if you read the disruptive editing link you provided you would have found in the first paragraph:

If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

If you are unaware of what constitutes disruptive editing you can look at disruptive editing, I wouldn't say this comes close. if it were disruptive editing your approach is very different from the guide for dealing with disruptive editors.

You have also threatened me with a block on the first warning, convention dictates this should accompany the third warning (Vandalism on Wikipedia). Again, this would only apply if it were actually vandalism.

You chose to use the level 3 template for blatant vandalism, how is that anything but disingenuous?

As per policy found on the vandalism page I am now meant to warn the mistaken user of their/your incorrect usage with a detailed message on the talk page, as I have done. Here's the corresponding template, not hard to do properly as that's quite literally the point of templates:

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Let's be clear: I made an edit and it was reverted about a month later by a third party with the edit summary 'not appropriate for the lede', assumedly for the controversial nature. Well, from the BLP style guide:

Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm.

This is then clearly suppression unless a state funded public service broadcaster is an unreliable source. As for encyclopaedically relevant, this is arguably the most symbolic, deliberate, outgoing and widespread interaction constituents have had with this politician. It even goes beyond the incident itself and efficiently summarises what is a widely reported and ongoing point of national interest and discussion. He has been called 'Potato Head' by MP's in parliament, Indigenous art has been made to that effect from recycled electrical wire, local Chinese media refers to him as 'Potato Brother' and there was even a charitable campaign sending potatoes to Dutton in exchange for a donation used to support refugees. This is not a passing remark or an old nickname, it is a key part of the story.

So I undid the revision and then you did the same and sent me this warning, again breaking with convention by failing to be specific about your reasons in the edit summary. FYI, disruptive editing and vandalism are not the same and this is neither.

I don't use a single IP or an account because I don't care for the internet points and I am not alone in feeling this way. Please consult the following:

Wikipedia:Don't be trigger happy

Wikipedia:IPs are human too

Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal

(14.200.147.190 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC))

• You obviously know enough about how Wikipedia works to know what is and what is not encyclopedic and what is and is not vandalism so I don't believe any further comment on this is useful or necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sock accounts/IPs

About your close here, the IP range 27.34.0.0/17 is only blocked for certain articles. Please see if it can be wholly blocked for some time; a lot of socking is coming from the range (from different masters no less) and doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon. While it maybe somewhat damaging for some legitimate IP uses, the amount of disruption and continuous socking ever since the pandemic is too much.

Please see if you can also speedy delete the Valmiki Ashram article, it was somehow accepted through AfC but has mostly been edited by socks or IP socks of the master (primarily using the article to self-promote and POVPUSH throughout wiki). Gotitbro (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've modified the block on the /17 given the socking. The article isn't eligible for speedy deletion so will need to be nominated through AfD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wacky Wars

User:Wacky Wars, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wacky Wars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wacky Wars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Reporting of vandalism

180.247.192.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this user's been changing reliable references provided. This user's adding some untrusted sources of info. For instance, regarding Rabiya Mateo's birthdate. I provided a reliable reference which is an article from PEP. PEP stands for Philippine Entertainment Portal, Inc. It is a joint venture of Summit Media and GMA New Media, a subsidiary of GMA Network Inc. (one of Philippines' largest network) which makes my reference reliable. and yet, this user keeps on removing this reference and changing it with unreliable references. He should be suspended. Shawntheshipper (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. 180.247.192.254 user has been DISRUPTIVE! Ianpaulguerrero (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Shawntheshipper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Ianpaulguerrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This 2 users are both SOCKED-PUPPETRY accounts
Shawntheshipper You're being annoying by reverting and deleting legitimate references there and you're currently on edit warring with so many users. As you did here, you're reverting everyone edits HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and many more... Stop reverting everyone's edit, you're being non-sense and content removal by deleting reliable sources is inappropriate Arabiya Sundall page isn't even your own page, everyone has the right to edits but yours are too disruptive and changing newly updated legitimate sources with an small local TV channel blog isn't accepted, even CNA article aren't legitimate sources sometimes you should also check the actual date released of the news.180.247.192.254 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 **socked puppet account: Shawntheshipper also involved in socked puppet account with Ianpaulguerrero based on your edit comment on Rabiya Sundall Mateo this 2 user are identical and came from the same IP Address that suspected with vandalism acts on Rabiya Sundall Mateo history page. HERE & HERE their edits comment using CAPSLOCK which is very inappropriate and impolite behavior, also using identical attacking words. Which came from the same IP Address, are totally suspicious. 

• • • socked puppet facts: This 2 accounts (Shawntheshipper & Ianpaulguerrero) are both commenting at the same concern and it happens at the same times to the Callanecc, I Nyoman Gede Anila, Materialscientist talk pages!! and reverting all the edits made by other users, this 2 users (Shawntheshipper & User:Ianpaulguerrero) are totally suspicious. 180.247.192.254 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• You can see reference previews. This shows a preview of the footnote when you hover over it. This has been a beta feature. It will move out of beta and be enabled by default. There will be an option not to use it. The developers are looking for small or medium-sized wikis to be the first ones. You can let them know if your wiki is interested. [27]
• From November 16 the categories will not be sorted in order for a short time. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the internationalisation library. They will use a script to fix the existing categories. This can take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can read more. [28][29]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please remove protection on Sambandam

Please remove the restrictions on editing Sambandam. HelenaBetany (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)