Jump to content

User talk:Callinus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Need cite for "Tim D. White has argued"

[edit]

Your changes to Australopithecus deyiremeda included

Tim D. White has argued that more evidence is needed before concluding that the variation in fossils is not merely diversity within Australopithecus afarensis.

That sentence is not referenced and will likely be removed. Please add a citation. Thanks. 67.100.127.22 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

[edit]

Reference errors on 15 June

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI for Muslim Public Affairs Committee

[edit]

You recently left a note on my talk page - No I do not have any associations or receive any payment from any organization. I watch most of pages I edit and try to introduce a NPOV. I do edit Muslim Public Affairs Committee and many other page depending on the activity level and how many people are involved in editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Callinus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wombshifter 1.
Message added 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidate comments on Charleston church shooting

[edit]

Since you commented in the discussion at Talk:Charleston church shooting, I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

[edit]

Q&A

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to improve Q&A (Australian talk show) in light of the [[Zaky Mallah]] incident 110.175.158.17 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Callinus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mz7 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kabul Parliament attack

[edit]

It is currently nominated for deletion. Comment at AFD. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

[edit]

Deleting your own userspace pages

[edit]

Hey Callinus. There's a much easier way to delete pages in your own userspace than going to MfD. You just need to tag the pages with {{Db-g7}}, and they'll be quickly deleted by an admin. Bosstopher (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Actually, the best way would be to use {{db-u1}}. WP:CSD#U1 is the section of the criteria for speedy deletion that permits the speedy deletion of personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. The criterion comes in handy sometimes. Mz7 (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Man I suck at advice giving... Sorry Callinus! Bosstopher (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All good-- Callinus (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

[edit]

You labeled this as SYNTH where it is in fact cited in Forbes [1]. My wording was actually more objective because Alex Ohanian did not explicitly say Reddit is a bastion of free speech but rather he felt the founding fathers would've viewed it as that. I am completely open to using Forbes' wording though. --76.69.143.235 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

[edit]

Appropriate response to Trump draft issue

[edit]

Hi Callinus,

Now that this issue has been posted in the Trump talk section for several days and has received no dissenting opinions, I was intending to revert @Eclipsoid's deletions and post a comment in the Trump talk section to that effect. Is that the proper procedure or would you suggest something else?

Thanks Gaas99 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It probably deserves a sentence with a ref or two. If there's a sentence on Trump taking a massive dump on Lindsey Graham then there should probably be a sentence on the exchange with McCain. -- Callinus (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

[edit]

DYK for Charlie Charlie Challenge

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

[edit]

"Vandalism"

[edit]

Kindly do not patronize me, and do not abuse the word "vandalism". It means something quite specific, and abusing it, as you did, shows a lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Your addition violated policy on Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:CONTROVERSY articles with 1RR do not get sections blanked without discussion. -- Callinus (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Those aren't policies. And yes, sections do get removed without discussion. And "vandalism", on the other hand, is a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", and I can't wait for you to argue that that's what I was doing. WP:VANDAL, by the way, is a policy, and I think you should read it. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:VANDAL "Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary" - if you claim your summary had a valid reason, I disagree and see your editing as deliberately violating WP:BRD and WP:CONTROVERSY policies. You know that 1RR applies to abortion - I apologise for using the term "vandalism" but I presumed bad faith as I assumed that anybody who knows and understands 1RR applying to articles with active community sanctions on abortion and previous Arbcom evaluation would know not to section blank without discussion. -- Callinus (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"non-frivolous explanation" - I apologise. I dismissed your explanation as frivolous, I should have explained better. This is a mistake on my part. -- Callinus (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

[edit]

Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for DYK, but the lede needs rewrite, and the "Reactions" section is tagged as undue. I welcome your help. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Pixels

[edit]

I don't think we disagree about this article as much as you probably think. My problem is mainly that your source for claiming that this was abuse is the actual DMCA takedown page. I would have no problem if you could find another source and write something to the effect of "This action was seen as abusive by" and then list the sources. (Although I would still take issue with the section title. I think "Controversy" would be a better a much better title) I would actually agree that the actions come across to me as abusive but that's my opinion and it's best to keep our own opinions off of Wikipedia. A great example of a non biased look at something similar would be the controversy section for the video game Edge (video game) this simply tells the facts of what happens but most readers can clearly tell that it was not exactly on the up and up. The point there is it's left up to the reader weather trademarks were abused and, I think, that makes it a stronger article. --Deathawk (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathawk: Happy with this?

Columbia Pictures hired Entura International, described as a copyright troll[1] by Ars Technica, to send Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to people who upload copyrighted film clips.[2] The company proceeded to file DMCA takedown notices indiscriminately against several Vimeo videos containing the word "Pixels" in the title, including the 2010 award winning short film the movie is based on,[3] the official movie trailer, a 2006 independently produced Cypriot film uploaded by the Independent Museum of Contemporary Art, a 2010 university major work by a student of the Bucharest National University of Arts, a royalty free stock footage clip and an independently produced project. The takedown notice sent by Entura falsely claimed that the works infringe a copyright they had the right to enforce, and once the notice was made public, it was withdrawn.[4][5]

-- Callinus (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on Unidan. Can I ask you about it?

[edit]

Revert in question. The link you said, "WP:EGG" says "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible". As "shadow ban" is a different way to say "stealth ban" according to the article, how is it a piped link? I created a redirect, shadow banned to stealth banning. Would that be usable now, as it's not a piped link and goes directly to the page in question? Anarchyte 10:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: It's not EGG per se.
A lot of articles written by activists and enthusiasts use a particular set of language that lowers its credibility among a mainstream audience because it looks like it's written by a hobbyist - policies like WP:CRUFT, WP:PEACOCK, WP:SOAP all deal with this (WP:Real world for fiction).
Stealth bans are used by Fog Creek Software, Hacker News and many others - writing from the perspective of one particular website is problematic. -- Callinus (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we write it as "In July 2014, Eisenkop's Unidan account got "shadow banned" (a form of stealth banning) on Reddit for [...]"?
It allows for people who know the Reddit terminology and for the average reader to understand what's being said here. Anarchyte 11:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not necessary. The phrase stealth banning is simple, factual and accurate and has a non redirect link. Adding Reddit promotional material adds nothing. @Anarchyte: -- Callinus (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

[edit]

DYK for Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklists in named refs and harv references

[edit]

Hello Callinus, thanks for cleaning up blacklisted links. If you remove a named reference or a reference used as harvard citation, please make sure to delete or replace all instances of the reference - I have made that error myself in the past, aka. a few days ago :). AnomieBot reports such problems, see the last few posts in User talk:AnomieBOT for a list of current articles, that need a second look. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) @GermanJoe: I've seen the messages. I'm trying to get the list down in a hurry. Cheers.-- Callinus (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, was just notifying incase you weren't aware. Thanks again for doing that boring but necessary task. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Thalys attack

[edit]

You added: "A 28 year old French banker of slight build with no military background was heading to the toilet, and saw the armed gunman, and attempted to fight him." Do you have a source for of slight build with no military background? It is contested by another user, who made a personal attack to you in his edit summary, which annoyed me. Otto (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Otto ter Haar: A Google cache of telegraph.co.uk has "shocked and terrified the banker, who has no military background" - the phrase has been dropped from the live coverage (possibly at the request of the man himself). That was on the site before. In terms of AGF, people make legitimate mistakes. -- Callinus (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
refs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ars was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "ANTI-PIRACY GROUP HITS INDIE CREATORS FOR USING THE WORD 'PIXELS'". TorrentFreak. 8 Aug 2015.
  3. ^ https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/11039982
  4. ^ http://www.cnet.com/au/news/videos-taken-down-from-vimeo-for-using-the-word-pixels/
  5. ^ https://torrentfreak.com/vimeo-intervenes-to-fix-pixels-dmca-disaster-150811/

Reffs

[edit]

Wait please. You are removing a link to a very usefull book I found on shaterfly library. Why is blacklisted? FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to remove the link but leave the name of the book and page number? Like this: diff. FkpCascais (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FkpCascais Because it doesn't meet standards of reliability and is self-published and has a history of spam abuse that violates the external links policy - meaning that the site is being used as an SEO strategy to build links without adding any quality information.
If you'd like to cite useful information on a page, please find a relaible secondary source published by an established, independent organization (like a mainstream newspaper) that documents the claims made, and has a history of editorial oversight, and published corrections for errors in print. -- Callinus (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the second point, use something like the following (reftag.appspot.com)

Beogradski "Sokolovi". P. M. Prokić. 2003. ISBN 978-86-904233-0-9.

Use |page=83 etc as you wish. Cite the actual, reliable source, not a blacklsited spam domain. -- Callinus (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, of course, the only reason I used that domain was because those books were available at that time on that site, but the books are the best possible sources in that field of pre-WWII football and with this process we are loosing the entire citation. Can you at least leave the book name and page number? It would spare at lest for now a lot of work. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FkpCascais
I can't rollback my revisions without re-adding the site that is now blacklisted. That specific domain was only used on four pages. Note that the old url says "Sorry, this site has been deleted. To restore this site, please contact Customer Service via email at customerservice@cs.shutterfly.com or call us at 1-888-225-7159." so it's a dead link anyway (possibly a copyright issue originally - note that WP:YT and WP:ADV mention issues around copyright here).
If you use a tool like the Google books cite tool then it will add the ISBN and that way if Google books changes its URL format a bot can change everything with the ISBN as the canonical source - but if you link to a site that isn't guaranteed to have the copyrights (or to stay up permanantly) then you'll have issues in future with linkrot. -- Callinus (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I saw what you did at one article. In the meantime I reverted back the other articles but leaving it as in the diff I showed you, without the link to the shutterfly and with just the name of the book and page number. That was a practical way I found for quickly restoring at least the book name and page at the series of articles, and later I will add the correct template and link to google books. Many thanks, and best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FkpCascais No worries. Also the google books citer tool embeds the ISBN which then links to free tools like openlibrary etc, which can let people around the world check if their local library has it - without having to update that every time the third party library sites change URL schemes. -- Callinus (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RM close

[edit]

Hello Callinus. Not really a criticism (as it doesn't affect the reality of the situation), but I'm just wondering how you closed the discussion at Talk:Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 2015 as no consensus? All four contributors who !voted opposed the proposed move (and the one that didn't said he supported the creation of redirects rather than moving), so I would have expected a "not moved" outcome. Cheers, Number 57 15:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: "no consensus to move" means "not moved" - this isn't to say that the !votes for moving the page don't count, just that they haven't achieved consensus required to perform the move. -- Callinus (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Callinus. I have been advised by other admins (after making closes myself) that they're not the same thing. "No consensus" means that there isn't clear consensus on moving or not moving (i.e. the discussion could have gone either way). If the consensus is specifically against moving, the result should be "not moved". Number 57 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

[edit]

did not see verification

[edit]

searched for the word "matrix" in the source. no hits.[2] please add verifiable info instead of unverifiable info. wp:v is kind of a thing around here. =) best regards Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ you added the wrong date. that date was not verified in either source, was it? please try to summarize the source "reported dead on date X" instead of adding original research: "died on date X". thx Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is from the Sunday Times (see Newsweek gives attribution) I've updated the text to reflect that this is a report in the Sunday Times, not an official U.S. gov release.
On the date of death, there is an international dateline - a date within Iraq is not the same as US time, I believe wikipedia should be from the perspective of the time on the ground (Iraq time). -- Callinus (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biosthmors: also clocks at CENTCOM appear to have Tampa, Florida time, along with GMT (zulu time) as well as various local times in middle east. [3] -- Callinus (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your contributions. I think we've helped the article improve. As for the time, I agree that the time on the ground is reasonable. Yet do we have a source that gives the time on the ground at the moment of impact, let alone the time of death? He could have survived for a matter of hours before succumbing to the wounds, in theory. Although, perhaps this is a laughable idea to someone with knowledge on whatever kind of bomb was dropped. I guess we'll have to wait for a source? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biosthmors: Likely to be a hellfire missile - if this was at a petrol station there's no chance that people would survive the blast very long. The defense.gov source is from CENTCOM - my understanding is that they designate a target killed in action by watching an infared video live that has a "U" for Universal Time in the image. Note that the New York Times says that "Tuesday" is the day given by an anonymous official on when the U.S. day of the week was. I'd go with the centcom source as to the date on a gov list - the NYTimes is an anonymous source. -- Callinus (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 attack in Thalys train car has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callinus/Archive_3&oldid=1140531798"