User talk:Callitropsis

March 2023

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article, but I have found one and added it for you. Please try and remember to include sources yourself with future edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 06:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm not sure what you mean; could you please be more specific? I didn't actually add the loan to DC United to the article; that was done by an IP. All I did was fix the link to DC United so that it linked to the proper article and add a period to the end of the sentence. I only edited the page because I encountered the edit during RC patrol, as football (not to mention sports in general) isn't an area of interest for me. I'm well aware of WP:RS, WP:BLP, and related policies, so I did a quick Google search to confirm that O'Brien was sent on loan, saw that the loan was mentioned with RS later in the article, and figured the edit was legit. I see now that the sources listed at the time only discussed a reported signing, so I suppose I could've been more thorough in checking the sources especially considering it's a BLP. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But the loan was NOT sourced when you edited. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Fair enough. From my reading of WP:BLP, the unsourced information didn't seem like it was challenged or likely to be challenged since it doesn't involve any claims of wrongdoing (or something else that would likely be seen as controversial) and it's been well-documented by news outlets. Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. Since I came across the edit during RC patrol, I'm also curious as to whether I should immediately revert any unsourced addition to a BLP, controversial or not, which is something I do most of the time. In this case, I figured it was fine since I was able to verify the addition with a quick Google search, so I decided to close the tab after making a few quick copyedits and return to Special:RecentChanges to keep a lookout for more urgent problems. I promise I'm not trying to wikilawyer or be vexatious here; I really would appreciate feedback. — SamX [talk · contribs] 13:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realize that my actions violated the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. From now on, I will revert any unsourced change to BLPs I see while on RC patrol, just to be safe. Thanks for the heads-up. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

@SamX, please notify the creator of the Peter Hehir article, which is 69.230.132.62, about the recent PROD of that article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: You're correct that it's generally best practice to notify the creator when PRODing, but this case is unusual because the article was created by an IP in 2005. (IPs haven't been able to create articles since December that year.) The IP currently geolocates to Detroit, and whoever used that IP in 2005 seems to have mostly edited in the topic area of Australian film and television. Given this, and the way ISPs work, it's very unlikely that whoever is using that IP address is the same person who used it 17 years ago, so there's really no point in posting a notice on the IP's talk page. See Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@SamX, you did a good job explaining why it’s unusual. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: No problem :) You also don't need to ping people when you leave messages on their user talk page, since they'll receive a notification whenever someone edits their talk page. See Help:Notifications for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Help me

hey! I need some help from you. One user again reverting my edits without any specific reason and saying "Block evading sock" Bruhh is here (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

if you don't want help, please suggest who can help me @SamX Bruhh is here (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bruhh is here: It looks like you commented on the SPI case page, which is a good start. Aside from that, there's not very much you can do. If you haven't created your account to evade a block against policy, the CheckUser will determine that you're not a match for the other account and you'll be free to continue editing, although some more experienced editors may have some feedback for you that you should take into account. If you have created this account after being previously blocked, this account will be blocked as well. Hope that helps. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't make this account after any block. I created this account when Wikipedia suggest I edit as an editor after donation. Thank you for your guidance. Bruhh is here (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I'm sorry. My siteban proposal at ANI was tone-deaf, poorly conceived, and needlessly escalated an already fraught situation. I've long been frustrated to see chronic disruption occur on this site despite intervention from administrators, ArbCom, and the community (I'm not referring to TRM in particular here; I don't have any strong feelings about him other than regret that I needlessly made his life more difficult), but I lacked the insight and self-awareness that to understand that my kneejerk reaction would do nothing but generate even more of the toxicity that I'm so frustrated about. The world would be a nicer, happier place right now if I'd stayed in my lane and hadn't meddled in a mess that I wasn't involved in. I'm not asking for forgiveness or anything, and I acknowledge that many editors will (justifiably) remain frustrated with me and disgusted with my comment at ANI and the mess that followed. I accept that this very statement will probably be viewed by some as attention-seeking and unnecessarily self-flagellating. As I've written on my user page, I value accountability and I always welcome feedback and constructive criticism, so feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, ping me, or use some other means to get my attention if you think there's something I could be doing better, and I intend to honor that. Anyone is welcome to frankly and candidly share their opinion here on my talk page—I view criticism and feedback as vital to personal growth, and I clearly have some growing to do. Or don't. It's nobody's responsibility to explain to me where I went wrong when it's been clearly articulated by several people on ANI already. Consider this a self-trout. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Howdy! Just stoppin' by to thank you for the assist in the whole Reference Expander debacle on Sub-Saharan Africa. Slog barely begins to cover it, haha. It's appreciated! ~Judy _{(job requests)} 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks to you as well :) I'm not the best at writing articles (although it's something I've been working on), so I try to help out wherever else I can. When I saw on AN that there's a huge heap of references that need repairing, it seemed like the perfect thing to gnome away at. — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fairly Representing the Socialist View of Democracy Isn't Biased -- It's Accurately Representing Marginalized Viewpoints under a Capitalist Editorial Bias

I respectfully disagree. The content you preserved and allowed to stay, while deleting and seemingly destroying mine, is capitalist, Western propaganda -- absolutely not at all neutral in itself, although superficially presented as such to feign credibility and manufacture consent to its subjective, biased presumptions. The goal is to discredit the socialists who started this attempted revolution, to misinterpret and censor their point of view, to smear them as anti-democratic, to misunderstand and suppress the alternative approach to democracy that socialists pursue, and to allow only one perspective -- that of the capitalist ruling class and of its system of liberal democracy -- and not multiple ones. Nor even an accurate understanding of socialist approaches to democracy. Fairly and accurately describing socialists' views, instead of reflexively spouting false Western, capitalist propaganda to smear them, isn't a violation of neutrality -- it's the pursuit of it, up against a clear editorial bias on your part. The one viewpoint allowed is absolutely not at all neutral, but instead dramatically biased in favor of capitalism, against the left, and against the working class. That you chose the right-wing, capitalist point of view completely unaltered over a neutral, fair analysis of the views of socialists as democratic revolutionaries simply reveals your own bias against socialism, and any of its potential democratic bona fides and merits. I was in the process of incorporating my source when you just deleted and destroyed my work. Under the pretense of objectivity, neutrality, and a diversity of viewpoints, you attack and destroy the work of those with differing perspectives from the US, neoliberal and liberal establishment. How is this scandalous, absolutely biased and ideological behavior on your part allowed with impunity -- with no debate and no accountability on Wikipedia? Please return to me the work I produced, and I will re-upload it with the sourcing -- which I was in the middle of doing when you just deleted it. What's more, in the end, this one paragraph of non-capitalist/non-right-wing propaganda added to this article simply offers an additional perspective on this crucial history that is fair to and actually understands the motivations of the socialist revolutionaries who were the main protagonists. It complements and rounds out the obviously biased, right-wing viewpoint of the so-called "objective" narrative in the remainder of the article. The entire goal of uploading it was to do exactly what you claim to want to do -- offer a fair, accurate account and incorporate multiple perspectives. If having multiple viewpoints and ideological balance is the goal, then your unilateral censorship of accurate, fair representations of socialist ideology has the exact opposite effect of this ostensible objective -- it allows right-wing views while suppressing left-wing ones. This right-wing ideological censorship masquerading as objective truth is beneath the intellectual standards, and poorly serves the readers, of Wikipedia. 2601:19C:4480:3090:AD1D:AABA:6624:21B7 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've replied on the IP's talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I've replied again with a more thorough response in case the editor who posed the above comment is monitoring this page, but is using a different IP address. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Khalistan movement

First of all, many thanks for helping out with the ReferenceExpander debacle! I was skimming the list and happened to notice that Khalistan movement appears twice: a decrease by 290 on 13 January that was reverted, and then a decrease by 440 on 14 January. I think your cleanup means that we can check both appearances off the list, but I wanted to make sure. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware that there had been two edits to that page with ReferenceExpander. I recognize some of the references in the second diff but not all of them, so I'll have a look to see if I missed anything. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I just checked, and everything looks good to go. The references that I didn't repair were apparently removed along with the text cited to them sometime after Philoserf used ReferenceExpander. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Revdel at lung cancer

Thanks so much for getting to this while I was distracted ... most appreciated ... I would have gotten back there eventually but glad I didn't have to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) I've been dipping my toes into CopyPatrol recently since it seems like it's a much better use of my time than standard RC patrol, and I'll probably start working on CCIs pretty soon. I've worked a fair amount on the ReferenceExpander cleanup and CCI seems like it has a similar vibe. — SamX [talk · contribs] 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Arash Avin

Hi i solved problem about arash avin i wrote , and i rewrite with any copy right, please check thank you , if have any problem please tell me i solve asap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/arash_Avin Kiava (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kiava: Thanks for fixing that. Earwig's copyvio detector doesn't detect any glaring issues with the article in its current state, although I'll have to check more thoroughly sometime later when I have time. I am concerned that, as it is right now, the article's tone is overly promotional and inappropriate for an online encyclopedia. I'll take a closer look and reply again when I have the opportunity, but I do appreciate you reaching out. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rara National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Panda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

SmallCat dispute case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Nice work out there removing all of those Nazi flag image vandalism the many IP addresses left on many user's talk pages! 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Layah50: Thanks, same to you! It was kind of a slog and I'd rather be working through CopyPatrol, but someone had to do it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you too Sam. Great team work. Knitsey (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Likewise! — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

for catching the vandal on my talk page. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 10:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your assistance re William Stukeley. I apologize for not attributing the text I copied from another Wikipedia page. 166.199.115.30 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) It's a mistake that a lot of newcomers make; just be sure to attribute in the future and you'll be all set! Feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Against vandalists

hey @SamX I'm tired of these vandalists like @ThePakistanihistorian and others for their external interests. Can you please help me to block them by doing vandalism? Also tell me how I can report them and stop further vandalism Melechha (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melechha: Vandalism on Wikipedia is defined very narrowly—for an edit to be considered vandalism, it must be a deliberate attempt to contravene Wikipedia's purpose, which is to create a high-quality, comprehensive encyclopedia that is written from a neutral point of view. I know very little about the history of the Indian subcontinent so I'm not qualified to judge your or ThePakistanihistorian's edits to Battle of Sangamner, but at a glance it seems to be a standard content dispute, not an incident of vandalism. Wikipedia's community norms mandate that we assume good faith of our fellow editors whenever possible even when we disagree with them, and I see no clear indicators that they're acting in bad faith.

The standard practice when faced with such disagreements is to discuss on the article's talk page. It's good that you and other editors have begun to do so, but it looks like you're talking past each other without reaching any sort of resolution. The next step is to follow the one of the procedures described at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. The dispute resolution noticeboard and neutral point of view noticeboard are good places to seek the input of uninvolved editors. This is especially important in contentious topic areas, which includes India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I've left notices on the talk pages of everyone involved in the dispute that explain this in more detail.

While reading that discussion, I noticed that you seem to be editing from two separate accounts. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding multiple accounts—In general, alternate accounts should be disclosed on your user and user talk page, and should generally only be used if there's a compelling reason to do so—for example, many Wikipedians use an alt when they edit on public computers. It also would've been helpful if you'd linked to the article and/or discussion when messaging me on my talk page, since it would've saved me a bit of digging.

Thanks for your time, — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I have been using my alt for editng with PC. Melechha (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX

Hello, good afternoon! I hope you are doing well. I will explain the entire situation here, actually this battle of Saganmner took place in which the maratha king, shivaji was forced to retreat and his remaining army was destroyed by the Mughals, I provided the best citation we have of jadunath sarkar along with 5 more citations, I even spoke to @Melechha but he ignored this and again (in his words), vandalized this wikipedia page and put some wrongly took references. This page originally stated a Mughal victory and it's a known fact that this is a Mughal victory but @Melechha used obscure sources and vandalized the wikipedia page again, please be aware of his hypocritical behavior here and warn him not to change this page again, he should be issued a warning, if not a block. I provided 6 authentic citations but he dismissed them without no reason and once again added his 3 unknown citations. I hope you have a good day, and thank you for your time!

Regards, thePakistaniHistorian. ThePakistanihistorian (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

how the actual hell is this vandalism? explain yourself. You provided only 3 citations, I provided 6 in return, yet you rechanged it, please take this into account @SamX, @melechha has been editing from two accounts, changes sources even when he knows he is wrong here ThePakistanihistorian (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThePakistanihistorian: I'm not interested in getting involved in this content dispute. Please discuss this on the article's talk page at or the appropriate dispute resolution venues. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all I'm not using any of my alt for weeks. Second your all sources are based on Jadunath's old dated edition of his work in History of Aurangzib but he has fixed his error in his 5th edition of his book. Whereas my sources are based on contemporary records which says this battle was a Maratha victory. Melechha (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melechha: Please discuss this on the article's talk page, not my talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Against Vandalism

hello sir,even after your warning the user @عبدالرحمن4132 is continuously doing vandalism on page Battle of Sangamner. he had already crossed Three revert rule as he done more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sangamner&action=history. This user also threatening other users on summary index. Aryan330 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: As I've said previously to other editors, good-faith content disputes are not vandalism, and please discuss the issue on the article's talk page rather than engaging in revert wars. I appreciate that content disputes can be very frustrating at times, but that doesn't excuse using reverts rather than discussing on the article's talk page or accusing other editors of vandalism. 4132 hasn't broken the three revert rule (he's only made three reverts in the past twenty-four hours), but he absolutely is edit warring in a manner that is sanctionable. To be completely frank, none of the participants in this dispute (yes, this includes you) have been following best practices for dealing with content disputes, so I'll file an arbitration enforcement report at some point within the next twenty-four hours. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX I had said to him after my first and last editing on that page and also user @Melechha had continuously discussed with him that Sarkar's source can't be taken there as he himself mentioned about his mistake in his other edition,but rather than discussing actual issue he is making fire in sky by stating the statements like other sources also have this information nothing more than that.

Lastly he had broken it as he had reverted 4 times in less than 48 hours,you can see.

By the way thanks for your time,I had just reported you about his vandalism,take action if you find relevant.Aryan330 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: As I've said before, please stop using the word "vandalism" to describe edits that you disagree with. It seems to me that you don't understand what that word means on Wikipedia. Describing edits that you disagree with as "vandalism" will likely be considered a personal attack and will reflect poorly on you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX okay I will take care of it onwards.

till then take action if you find relevant about him(continuously reverting)Aryan330 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)