User talk:Callanecc

Sachin Tomar

Sachin Tomar is protected from creation and I came across Tomar Sachin's. Since you were the one who last deleted the article, can you check if it has the same information. And if not, move the article to its proper name. Regards, Yash! 11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yash!: If you can't move an article to its proper name, it's always worth looking at that article to see why it was protected - in this case it's because a sockpuppeting spammer kept recreating it. I've raised a new SPI over the account that created the Tomar Sachin article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor DuckZz

Earlier you have put the ban of edit all articles about the war in Syria for this editor because he is broke rules of edit here But later you remove this ban but this guy still violate the rules of edit. He is again remove the towns and villages from map and do other editings without any sources on based suggestions and on based of him personal desires and his actions are causing great harm to the map.hereherehere[1] He ignored all comments in which I ask him stop make such edits but he again provide me only his suggestions and reflections, and nothing more. According to the rules of edit here: 1-A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided.
a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

We must edit only based relaible sources which must distinctly provide all our edits but his many times ignored this rules. So I ask you to convince him not to do so or to restore previously established ban otherwise its illegal actions will continue to cause damage to this article.Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map Sûriyeya (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-09

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

Recent changes

• Thanks to the Graph extension and Pageview API, we now have {{Graph:PageViews}} templates that can show pageviews for any wiki page for any of the wikis. See the examples.
• The Capiunto extension is installed on test wiki. Capiunto provides flexible infobox functionality for Scribunto and generates HTML for infobox features such as headers and rows. It is designed for clean and modern infoboxes that are driven by data from Wikidata, easily usable across different language versions, and easily extensible.
• The visual editor now follows the TemplateData format setting announced in November. When you edit or add a use of a template, the wikitext will be laid out in one of the two ways. [2][3]
• The order of parameters and format defined in a template's TemplateData will be now respected. [4][5]

Changes this week

• On wikis where the visual editor is available in single edit tab mode, red links may open the visual editor instead of the wikitext editor, depending on user preferences. [6]
• Anonymous editor warning is now displayed as a warningbox for consistency in both the visual editor and the wikitext editor. [7]
• Parsoid has been updated to fit some HTML 5 specifications. [8]

Meetings

• Resigning executive director Lila Tretikov is taking questions at Knowledge Engine FAQ regarding the much talked about project. [9]
• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 1 March at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Destiny Leo (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Review of old SPI

It's been 2 years since I was warned about sockpuppeting, and I was hoping to have the issue reviewed. I didn't do so at the time because I didn't want to appear disrespectful of admin authority, but I have been consistently frustrated by the false charge and the stigma it has given me on WP. The Appeals page recommends I speak to the enforcing admin first, so I thought I'd run my reasoning by you. 2 years ago Vzaak(they since left WP) and I had several disagreeable interactions while editing, and they began stating I should be removed from WP.

• Shortly afterward they filed a charge against me in SPI, with a huge list of circumstantial "clues" they had compiled indicating my guilt, mostly based on the editing IP and my alma mater both being in Long Beach, CA. Never having faced an SPI, I don't think I responded to their many accusations very well, and I was warned for sockpuppeting.
• Vzaak then initiated an AE against me, which was set aside.
• Vzaak then initiated another SPI against me, using an almost identical huge list of clues to prove that I was again sockpuppeting (and issuing death threats) from Long Beach, CA... except I was hundreds of miles away before, during, and after the supposed socking activity, as confirmed by admin Checkusers. When the admins dug a little deeper, they also found that the other accusations Vzaak had leveled against me (that I was "suppressing edits" in some kind of warring behavior) at the time were completely false.

As a side note, two of the editors who at various times supported Vzaak's claims against me (Barney and 76) were later sanctioned and/or blocked for inappropriate personal attacks.

Would you please consider reviewing the warning I have on record? To this day it is difficult to resolve any policy discussion without someone referring to me as a "sock" and disregarding any points I was making. The initial SPI originated from an editor who had a clear hostility toward me, charged me with various infractions over and over, and was eventually proven to have been citing inaccurate information. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! The Cap'n (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)