Jump to content

User talk:Callanecc/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Orphaned non-free image File:AAFC Crest - colour (large).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AAFC Crest - colour (large).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AAFC Support Wings

I have contested the proposed deletion of AAFC Support Wings, which you endorsed, on the grounds that an article that duplicates the content of another article should be redirected to that article. Accordingly, I have redirected this article to Australian Air Force Cadets, as it seemed more appropriate to redirect to a parent article rather than a list that is a child of that article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography tag

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Yusuf_Turani&diff=471806516&oldid=470611657

I removed most of the material Tewpiq and Cornellstudent added: [1], [2], [3]. I basically only kept the infobox Tewpiq added. Most of the remaining non-infobox text of the article was written by me. Can you please remove Template:Autobiography from the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know Callanecc (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the removal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Substitution

You substituted the {{No footnotes}} templates, instead of transclude it with {{No footnotes|date=November 2024}}. Please transclude it in the future. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Illusion Suite

Hello Callanecc. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Illusion Suite, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This has been tagged for two days and no one has deleted it - probably due to the performance at ProgPower suggesting significance. Take to AfD if you don't think NBAND is met. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Vladislav Zanadvorov

Do you realize that an entire book has been devoted to Vladislav Zanadvorov ([4])? There is no requirement that sources establishing a subject's notability be in English (although Googling for "Zanadvorov" in GoogleBooks will give you hits too). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted, however this significance is not established in the article. Callanecc (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess, then, that you're misintepreting the guideline. A7 says that importance is a "lower standard than notability." [5] That means that there's no point to speedying the article when the higher burden of showing notability is already met. The article as it is has two online encyclopedia entries for Zanadvorov, a newspaper article, and the talk page has an entire book devoted to the subject. That plainly renders the issue of speedy deletion moot. The article and the sources provided already explain the importance by establishing that this is a notable person. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you I was saying that I made a mistake in speedying the article. The article doesn't state that the has been a book written about him, or anything about the book. It's just my opinion that writing about the book in the article will allow readers to better understand his significance. On the up side this has lead to the article being improved quite abit from when I first saw it :). Callanecc (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Éditions Mille-Îles contested

I've contested the speedy deletion of Éditions Mille-Îles. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 02:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oakland city council pages

Greetings. Happy to from your userbox on my way in that the force is strong with you. :) Anyway, thanks for taking the pages of the oakland city council. Some of them have very long bios, some had short bios, some were redlinked. I've gone ahead and created stubs for them all, since it's easier to for my brain work on all the simultaneously.

I'm not unaware that they have issues and need work. Any advice you have to help rehabilitate them would be welcome. I don't have any axes to grind against anyone. It's just that Oakland is 8th largest city in the state, their elected leaders seems likely to be bio-worthy, but ultimately that will be up to the reliable sources that come out of the writing process, not my early 'instincts' about what's likely to be notable.  :)

I just didn't want you to think I didn't hear your concerns and take them into account. Some of the content may have to be moved into officeholder articles instead of biographical-articles for the less notable council members. (or maybe not). Any help or advice welcome! be gentle with me, I'm not sure what I'm doing, but trying hard to do it well. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, let me thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I suggest you read through the welcome post on your talk page, including the linked articles) (I've added a more in depth version than the one that is already there. The problem with the article relates to the criteria listed at WP:POLITICIAN regarding the notability. Obviously not living in the area I don't know if Kernighan is a "major local political figure". However, I don't believe that "significant press coverage" will be established on this particular person (KAWL News report noted). I think the main problem will be that a city councilmember will not generate the level of press coverage required.
If you still believe that Kernighan has had "significant press coverage" then follow the instructions on the PROD message. However I will nominate the page for deletion (see here) to allow the discussion the continue further. If you have any other questions please let me know :). Callanecc (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability tag

since you made no reply to my message of 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC) regarding your notability tag, and indeed deleted the talk section, i will assume you no longer support the tag unless you let me know otherwise. Stonewaters (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I removed the tag from the article. 01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP sources template on Dylan Different

Hi there, I just noticed you added BLP sources to the new jazz album article Dylan Different. I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so forgive me if if I'm asking a dumb question, but doesn't that template only apply to biographies of living persons?

Cheers, --RubenSchade (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry don't know what happened there, I've removed the tag Callanecc (talk) 09:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool, just making sure. Thank you! :) --RubenSchade (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

stub tags

Hi, I notice that you added {{stub}} to Glen Huon, Tasmania. Please remember that this tag doesn't take a date parameter, and that it goes at the end of the article, after everything except inter-language links (see WP:FOOTERS). It makes life easier for stub-sorters if the tag is in the right, predictable, place. Thanks. PamD 08:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks Callanecc (talk) 09:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Page Scott Ragsdale - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_ragsdale - Bare URL

Good morning,

I udpated the References links since your comment on the article I wrote. Could you please have a look to see if I updated the way you wish.


Thanks

Romain Tordo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaintordo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted and I've removed the tag.
If you haven't already used it, along the top of the edit box (where you write) this is a banner (with "B" & "I" etc). If you click on "Cite" it will drop down and show "Templates". You can use the drop box which appears to properly reference on wikipedia. Callanecc (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

You tagged many articles which were stubs under 'one source'. The article which were stub consisted of only one line so it is rather odd to have more then one source. Also the tag states that; it depends largly on one source. But as the article consist of 1 line, it doesnot depend largely on it as one source is enough for a line. You can have 'one source' tag if the article is of more then one line. See this. So, now can you please remove 'one source' from those articles.? Happy Editing! Yasht101 07:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why any article (including stubs) cannot have more than one source. Surely it is to the readers benefit to have more than one source in all articles? Callanecc (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree but 'One Source' is used when ever a large amount of material depends upon one resource. This tagging is done inorder to see that the article can be verified. Also, resources are not for readers but for verification of the material. If there are more lines in a article and still there is one resource, then 'One Source' is used not when there is only one line. Yasht101 08:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the tag from the articles to avoid this disagreement going further. Callanecc (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. It is not because I m the author of those articles, but because I dont want anything wrong. But you were brave enough to raise your voice. Always remember the policy Be Bold!. Nice to see editors like you. Sorry for the trouble caused. If there are any kind of problem or questions, then feel free to ask me. I m here to help! Thanks! Yasht101 09:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Harvey Aronson

Hi, I answered on the Harvey Aronson edits in my talk page. I think that's how it's done. Thanks. AC2011 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A Friendly Suggestion

Hi!

Looking over your wikihistory, it seems as though you're very willing to get involved with lots of areas of the project. That's great! We are encouraged to be bold and it's always nice to see such enthusiasm from a new contributor. However, it also looks like you're having some trouble dealing with the (admittedly vast) range of policies and guidelines which govern all these different areas. I'd hate to see someone who clearly has a lot to contribute getting dispirited by a barrage of criticism, so I thought I'd draw your attention to the Adopt-a-user Project. Here you can get a more experienced editor to mentor you and help you out with the labyrinthine legalities of Wikipedia. They can also help you should you get embroiled in content disputes or arguments over policy. Being adopted gives you a leg up with the technicalities of Wikipedia, and might help you channel your enthusiasm to become a really excellent Wikipedian.

I also adopt users. So if you are interested then either contact me or other adopting user.

This is just a suggestion, not a demand, so take it or leave it

ThankS!!

Yasht101 06:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

image description Steve Ince

Thanks for your help and warning for the SI page. I have no idea yet how to change the picture description, and to make sections. I recently changed the bios of Tony Warriner and Charles Cecil with the help of Khanassassin, but those were existing pages. I am sorry for the inconvenience, I am new to this,, but try to do it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamnos (talk • contribs) 10:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The welcome I put on your talk page should help you with formatting and navigating around Wikipedia. Make sure that on talk pages you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Regarding the image and adding information this page will tell you how to do it. Callanecc (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Article review

Hello, Callanecc. I wonder if you could advise me on how to improve the citations for the rejected article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vladimir_Arenev. I've read all the wiki FAQ pages on the matter before creating an article. The text is initially a translation of Ukrainian version http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87. + some his interviews and biography at main Russian fantasy fans site (referenced). Would the books ISBNs save the thing? What could you suggest? Thank a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaksus (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Wherever you have made a contentious comment such as "In 1995 applied to Biological faculty, but failed" in the Bibliography (do you mean Biography?). It MUST be referenced (preferrably with an inline citation) to a reliable source. There are also whole sections of the article which are not referenced at all such as "Science fiction and fantasy writer".
Re-reading this article it runs very close to being blanked - you need to adequately reference all possible "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" (from WP:BLP).
Let me know if you would like any more help. Callanecc (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Also- the welcome I put on your talk page should help you with formatting and navigating around Wikipedia. Make sure that on talk pages you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Callanecc (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Callanecc. I'm just starting here. I'll resubmit the article after proper editing.
Ajaksus (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

WDCW Article for submission

Hello,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/WDCW

I was wondering what specific parts of my WDCW article I should edit so that it doesn't read like an advertisement? I tried to make sure everything written was fact-based and cited independent sources for every claim. Below are the wiki pages for other ad agencies that I used as a guide. It would be helpful to know what parts of my article differ from these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firstborn_(digital_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKQA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSD%26M_Idea_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie_Sozo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker/DZP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodby,_Silverstein_%26_Partners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinney_(advertising_agency)

Thank you so much. I look forward to making the changes and getting this page up!

Take care, Rudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyWillingham (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Having another look at the article I've made an edit to fix the things I saw. I think it would pass with regard to advertising.
But before you resubmit I suggest you use the opportunity to work on the formatting of the article. I've added a {{linkrot}} tag so that should give you some pointers. Also if you have a look at the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Writing better articles as they will give you some ideas.
Wikipedia has a tool which helps with inline ciatations it is located at the top of the edit box (that is, where you write the article) this is a blue link (in the same line as B and I) called "Cite". Click on that then on "Templates" and it gives you some templates which will better format your references and get rid of the link rot probelm.
Also- the welcome I put on your talk page should help you with formatting and navigating around Wikipedia. Make sure that on talk pages you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).Callanecc (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Bosgraaf

Hi there Callanecc, and thank you for helping out at AfC. Please note that when you use the "BLP" reason to decline a submission, it actually blanks the submission and so shouldn't be used unless there is actual defamatory material in there. I have undone you BLP decline of the above article for those reasons. Cheers, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History introduction

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging AfC drafts

Hey there. I notice that you have been tagging some AfC drafts with maintenance tags. Would you mind leaving comments for the authors, and then only tag when you're moving drafts to mainspace (for COI, stubs, etc.) instead? I think tagging drafts may be slightly bitey, seeing as they're really designed to help readers and other editors, not article authors. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I understand where your coming from, from memory I only did it on the one article which was a COI tag. I disagree regarding maintenance tags being bitey especially for a new user. They provide information and links on what to do about the problem and where to get information in a much more accessible and obvious way than a comment saying the same thing would. But I can where your coming so I'll write use a comment instead. Callanecc (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
On a more trivial note, a draft article stops being a draft once it is submitted for review. Callanecc (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ultimately it's a matter of perception. It's not a huge deal, but I do think that comments directly addressed to authors would seem more personal than maintenance tags, especially since so many of the new editors at AfC have no experience with Wikipedia and its policies / norms at all. Thanks for considering. wctaiwan (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries, will do. Callanecc (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne General Post Office

The Melbourne General Post Office was a bad idea, considering it already existed at General Post Office, Melbourne. Who's going to do the merge? StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the way you wrote the above I was very tempted to just leave the work to you. Perhaps being a little more polite wouldn't be out of line and maybe even a glance through WP:CIVIL and WP:KIND would also be appropriate - up to you. I have merged the content from General Post Office, Melbourne to Melbourne General Post Office. Callanecc (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1383 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you (at least) autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver.

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.

On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
AndrewN talk 23:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Computer Systems Institute page review

Thank you for reviewing the article I wrote. I reviewed the other page you suggested merging my article with, and they are different schools. The one you suggested is located in the Philippines and was founded by different people. While the names of the schools are similar, it doesn't make sense to merge the schools. Please reconsider my article.

Thank you Rubenstein Neil (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(See answer on (Rubenstein Neil's talk page). Callanecc (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC))
  • The content of the submitted page is in essence the same as that deleted five times by five different admins (and obviously the nominators for CSD took a similar view). The article basically says "this is what we are selling... this is how we are accredited to do that.." — nothing about the company itself, other that who founded it and where its HQ is. There is no real history, and since it doesn't give basic facts like number of employees, number of students, turnover or profits, I'm not sure that it even demonstrates notability. To me, it's just a sales pitch. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Rubenstein Neil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I believe I addressed all the issues regarding the article I wrote. Please let me know your thoughts at this point. Thanks

Rubenstein Neil (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Rubenstein Neil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What are the next steps at this point? Rubenstein Neil (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tags on the article

Hi Callanecc,

Thanks for the talk about the article, for accepting it and for your suggestions on how to improve it.

Having read up about the maintenance tags, I've added both a lead article and sections as you suggested. Will the page be reviewed again automatically or do I need to resubmit it somehow please? Can't see a button or option for review changes?

Many thanks,

Soong2 (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Soong2

Declined Rakim Sanders Submission

Hi Callanecc. I am posting to follow up to your recent decision to reject the Rakim Sanders submission. You are right, being a college basketball player does not make a player notable. Sanders is notable because he a. has participated in a major international amateur or professional competition and b.Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Sanders cemented himself as a notable collegiate athlete in countless competitions for BC and Fairfield on channels ranging from CBS to ESPN to local channels such as NESN. He received extensive media coverage from media outlets such as ESPN, NBA.com, and CBS. He hit multiple game-winning shots, and a number of his plays were highlighted in SportCenter's top ten plays (he topped the charts twice). More importantly than his relevance purely as a star college player is the fact that Sanders is considered by media outlets such as NBA.com and NBAdraft.net as a viable candidate not only to be signed by an NBA team, but to be drafted by one. Sanders not only meets Wikipedia's criteria as an amateur athlete, but also compares favorably (in terms of notability) with players such as Keith Wright (basketball) and Darius Miller. Additionally, I think the sourcing of the page proves Sanders' notablity and satisfies the criteria for the sourcing of a Wikipedia page. I recognize that it is not a clear-cut case and would appreciate if you would reconsider. Thanks for taking the time to review the page. If you need me to explain anything I just said, or further discuss, I'd be happy to.Rupert'sscribe (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm still on the fence, but am inclined to accept it (primarily because of the ESPN converage), but I just have a few questions:
  1. a. You are referring to the Portsmouth Invitational Tournament, or something else?
  2. b. I couldn't find anything in the references which mentions that he has had coverage by CBS or NBA.com, and in some cases the ESPN coverage looks to be WP:ROUTINE and/or not covered by WP:ATH#Basic criteria.
  3. I think WP:CRYSTAL applies since he hasn't been drafted, the quote is worth including but doesn't prove notability.
  4. I think that both Keith Wright (as Ivy League ... Player of the Year) and Darius Miller have other things which increase their notability.
  5. Going through the sources (the numbers are as they appear on the page:
  • [1] is an official website and doesn't contribute to establishing notability.
  • [2] is a player profile and covered in the WP:ATH#Basic criteria. Is there a specific standard they have to reach to be included there, if so could you please let me know where it says that.
  • [3], [4] & [6] are just match schedules?
  • [5] & [8] look to be WP:ROUTINE, though I'm happy to admit I'm not to sure on that...?
  • [7] & [9] I believe would be covered under WP:CRYSTAL, you can include the quotes (which certainly add to the article) but they don't establish notability other than the fact that the report is there.
  • [10] seems to be a local newspaper.
Callanecc (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
All good questions. I hope I can provide good answers:
a. (If you are asking which notable events) I am referring to : Portsmouth Invitational and the NCAA Tournament.
b. You are correct: neither sources from CBS or NBA.com are used. For examples seethis, this, or this
c. Agreed-- we can not say that Sanders is notable because he is considered a future NBA player-- but we can say that the media attention he has recieved in conjunction with his NBA scouting adds to his notability.
d. Wright has recieved personal awards but so has Sanders (and Sanders has played at a higher level). Miller has played on a more notable team, but did not start for them or garner the same recognition at the college level.
e. Agreed
  1. No--does not add to or prove his notability
  2. Yes-- show notable games that Sanders has participated in, but do not by themselves make him notable.
  3. [5] is routine and he is not the focus, source used to show a highlight in Sanders' career. [8] is not routine coverage. All players who are injured might have their injuries noted in articles, but this article centers around Sanders and points to his injury as the reason for the Eagles' struggles.
  4. Okay, thanks for the input
  5. Yes it is a local paper.
Hope this all helps. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article I would love to hear them. Rupert'sscribe (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've accepted the article and included a few wikiprojects on it's talk page (they are a good place to go to find out more about how to make the article better). I would suggest adding the CBS references to the article to help establish notability and reliability of the article. Make sure you keep WP:BLP in mind. Also if you have a look at the References section there are a couple of the references which need titles in their cite web templates. I also suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Writing better articles & Wikipedia:Article development. If you need any more help please let me know & I'll see what i can do. Callanecc (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Another thing you can do is search for "Rakim Sanders" in the search bar and go to each page he is mentioned on and check that his name links to his article (using square brackets around his name). Callanecc (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I will continue on trying to improve the page. I will also start by making sure mentions of Rakim Sanders on other pages link to his page. Thanks again.Rupert'sscribe (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Article reviewing

Hi, thank you for helping to review articles. If you review manually (and I strongly suggest you install the script) please make sure that you change "Example" in 'u=Example' to the editor who submitted the article. Also please ensure that you provide an edit summary (such as, "declining submission due to advertisement. An example is when you reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Cheng. Thanks, Callanecc (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Umerali2204

I thank you for guiding me to review article manually , but the reason is i cannot install the script, please help me in this regards. Umerali2204 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you followed the instrcutions at User talk:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js#Installation. Primarily have you clear your browser's cache? Callanecc (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, i've installed the script and using it.Umerali2204 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

CSI

I made these edits, mainly MoS (removing external links from text, refs following (added) punctuation, correct letter case, overlinking etc.) I think the text is OK now, I'll unprotect the article space. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Computer Systems Insitute

Thanks for moving my article into the mainspace. My next question is if the article is in jeopardy of being deleted due to being categorized as a start page? If so...how long do I have to improve it?

Thanks

Rubenstein Neil (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed proposed deletion of List_of_La_Marzocco_products

My justification is in the talk page. Please respond there if you want any further discussion.

Thanks :) Hugzz (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcus Kretzer

Dear Callanecc,

thanks for reviewing my article about Marcus Kretzer. Concerning the section "Life and education": how can I prove that he studied in Cologne and Hamburg without showing his diplomas and exams? I would have to upload them to the Commons which is not possible because these documents are absolutely privat. Besides, Kretzer won't give me them. Is the link to the Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hamburg not sufficient enough? It shows that he studied there.

The Rachmaninoff.ogg is the recording of his conert exam in the Laeiszhalle - so this should be a reference.

The dedication of the composer Skubella could only be referenced by a link to the german editor's homepage. There http://www.ffmusicians.com/mazurka_1587.html one can see the music sheet including the dedication, but this is a commercial site.

Concerning the layout errors: I don't know why the tables appear in such a different way in comparison to the german Wikipedia article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Kretzer. Although I used the same codes the gallery appears on the left instead on the right side.

You see, I need some assistance. And please excuse my bad english. Best regards Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia's policy regarding the citing of sources states that "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles" (WP:PSTS, third dot point, last line in section)
There are parts which are contentious such as (the bold bit) "The Czech pianist and piano paedagogue Drahomir Toman, a grandson pupil of Liszt and fellow student of Friedrich Gulda, promoted and influenced Kretzer's further musical development to 1986"
  1. Before adding of a source consider this: "Does it prove what I want it to prove?". Does Rachmaninoff.ogg prove anything or is it something which readers of the article may wish to know (if so then it goes in the External Links section or in the See Also section if it is further reading).
  2. As long as the sources proves it, which from your description it does then it is most certainly a source which should be included.
  3. I've sort of fixed it, I just can't get the text to wrap around.
  • Does this help? Anything else I can help with?

Callanecc (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply.
  1. I now changed the phrase promoted an influenced to had great influence on. At least that is what Kretzer said himself about these years. I'm not sure whether this change fits your point.
  2. Do I understand right: should the Rachmaninoff.ogg be mentioned in the Notes section?
  3. I put in some blank lines to make the gallery appear opn the right side. It's far away from being perfect but it seems to be the only solution.
  4. If you don't mind to precisely mark other contentious parts it would be a great help.
Thanks again and regards Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. You said he says it himself, but there is not evidence of that. When talking about personal life you need to include references. It is a contentious part of a biography so needs to be referenced (if you can find them).
  2. No in the External Links section. I've changed the name Notes to References to be clear.
  3. Yeah once it's in main space someone will fix it.
  4. I'll mark the ones I can see with Template:citation needed. I'll also add one or more maintenance tags to the submission (you don't need to do these for it to be accpeted into main space [excluding the ones related to references).
No worries, anything I can do, let me know. Callanecc (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Callanecc, I never had thought how tricky it could be to create an article in the english wikipedia - it was so much easier in the german one. Anyway, this is your playground and these are your rules and of course I can see the point of them. But now what to do? A lot of what I wrote is what Kretzer told me personally - how can I prove that? He himself says where and what he studied and what his interests are on his facebook site. Other parts are content of his official website, for example the "Czech pianist and piano pedagoge"-bit or the critics from all over europe or from central america. I already mentioned his facebook- and website as an external link. Is it legal to cite it as a reference too? To prove the awards-section might become extremely difficult - of course he has got these awards in paper form, one could copy them as pdf but Kretzer won't agree to load them up to the commons. Another example: his pupil Natasha Garcia-Guinot names him as one of her teachers on her website. This site is one of the external links. Should I put it into the reference section? I'm very sorry for asking these probably stupid questions but I'm not very experienced in this business. So thanks again for your assistance. By the way:
I like very much the infobox! Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What he told you would be original research which isn't allowed - so unless you can find a source for it it's probably a good idea to get rid of it. But if it isn't a direct quote and it isn't contentious, and there are no red flags from words to watch it probably won't get deleted.
  • See WP:FACEBOOK - it primarily states that it can be used as a primary sources as long as it can be authentiated to Kretzer.
  • If you can name the critics (with sources perferrably) and get quotes (which are cited) that will go a long way.
  • Official webistes should be in there (which it is - in the infobox) and can be used as a primary source, they just don't, by themselves, demostrate notability.
  • You can (and should quote) Natasha Garcia-Guinot from her website, just make sure you cite it.
  • No worries re asking them. I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to answer them.
Callanecc (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Callanecc, it's me again. I now added what I understand as references to the contentious parts. Could you have a look, please? I hope very much that everything is OK. Tanks Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. Which passages do you still mean with peacock terms? If you could exactly tell me I will try to fix it. Greetings Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Better now? Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes & I've removed the tags. Well done, you should be proud of the work you have put into the article. I suggest that, once you've done all you can think to it, you should go for an independant review from WikiProject Biography which will provide some pointers on what to do next. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review for more information. Callanecc (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much. A final question: is my english good enough or are there typical germanisms, wrong prepositions or phrases which make native speakers laugh or, worse, angry? Best regards and thanks again Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(outdent)

Yeah there are a few times, but it isn't something you would (well me anyway) laugh (etc) about, just notice. Compared with some other things are written on the English Wikipedia, your writing isn't noticeable. If you ever need help in the future please feel free to leave me a message (just under a new heading though :) - I think this one is quite long already). Callanecc (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, let's close this for now. And if I need your help once again I'll accept your friendly offer. Keep well, thanks again and best regards, Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Article accepted and moved into main space.

how to correct article : bio about living person

hello, I submitted an article about Mr. Crow Swimsaway, PhD, from Athens, OH a neoshaman. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crow Swimsaway,PhD.

I would like to correct any problems and resubmit. Should I have verified each statement I made at the beginning of this article--I assumed my list of references would show where I got the information but I can reference each statement if necessary.

can you point out more specifically what should be changed or what do you recommend that I correct? Mairyann (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC) mairyann


  • If you have a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons it will give you some pointers. Basically anything which has been "challenged or likely to be challenged" and anything which is contentious MUST have an inline citation. Also anything personal should be cited (such as the third point below). For example:
    • "Swimsaway studied Cranio Sacral healing as an extension of the shamanic hands-on energy healing he practices and teaches."
    • "Both He and his wife, presented a paper to "8th Conference International society for shamanic Research" 2007 in Budapest, Hungary."
    • "When he was age two or three Swimaway's Mother died of peritonitis. His father was a young physician at the time and put Swimsaway in the care of his grandmother, Bes Davis Nettleship where he happily lived on a farm in the Arkansas Ozarks until he turned 9 or 10. Then he lived in several states in midwest as he moved around with his father, a physician and coroner."
  • I also suggest that you work on the WP:TONE and layout. The following should provide some guidance:
  • Does this help? Let me know if you need any more assistance.

Callanecc (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

University of Michigan Business Engagement Center

Thank you for reviewing my article about the University of Michigan Business Engagement Center. I have now added a wider variety of sources to the articles. I was going to resubmit it, but it won't let me since you didn't officially decline it. Can you please review the article again and consider it again to be published? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean P. Dougherty (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean P. Dougherty (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Sean P. Dougherty (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Well done those sources are better, although have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, note that blogs are not reliable. See the comment I left on the article when I declined it:
I believe the information to accept the article is there, however because of the tone, non-use of the
formal tone expected on Wikipedia and the use of
peacock terms it reads more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article.
  • Some examples:
    • "The BEC represents an example of a holistic corporate relations effort at a national research university."
    • "The BEC connects ideas, technologies, and knowledge created by students, faculty, and departments."
    • "This allows companies to more quickly and easily discover joint research opportunities at U-M, connect with student design teams, and uncover technology utilization and commercialization opportunities."
  • Does that make sense? Happy to help more if you need it.

Callanecc (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 

Article accepted and moved into main space.

Disambiguation and a New Page

Hi!

First of all, thank you for responding to my outcry :-)

I am new to wikipedia, just created an account today. I am a journalist and PhD student so I assumed I had it in the pocket, but, no, I don't. Heh. Just now, I edited the page of Hugo Nicolson Hugo Nicolson, an English producer and engineer to include a couple biographical details because I looked him up here on wiki (for another article I'm writing) and found a couple things missing... When I added another album to his discography though, wiki automatically accepted the change but much to my chagrin I found that it was to another record of the same name, and a) I'm not sure how to use the disambiguation redirect, and b) the page for the appropriate record doesn't exist and I don't know what kind of sources to cite the existence of an album???

I know that's an eyeful, but, if you have any time to help!

Thank you,

Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deliblujeli (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angie and welcome to Wikipedia. You need to be an autoconfirmed user to move a page so you won't be able to yet....
I think, the better way to create an article would be through the Article wizard. When you have created the article you can submit it to articles for creation where it will be reviewed by an experienced editor. This can take a long time to be reviewed so leave me another message (here) and I'll review (rather than you waiting for someone to get to it) it when I get a chance. Callanecc (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, make sure that when you post on talk pages you sign using four tildes (~~~~) so it's clear who wrote the comment. Callanecc (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


Oh, fantastic, thank you :-) I did try with the Article Wizard a bit but I'll sit down and give it a better shot-- and I'll send it over to you for sure once I do! And yes, I did notice the signature after already posting this and tried to change it-- it's confusing to know when I've submitted something or edited something or added a new topic, oh my... Hehe... but here goes Deliblujeli (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Deliblujeli

whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.

Help needed to clear the Feedback Dashboard queue

Hi Callanecc, a project has been constructed and Maryana (WMF) was wondering if you'd be able to help out with a research project her colleagues are running on the effects of MoodBar/Feedback Dashboard. They're trying to see if getting a response to MoodBar feedback helps newbies edit more – but to do that, they need to (temporarily) raise the level of responses to as close to 100% as possible. (Don't worry; it's only a week-long test.) If you could help me and her spread the word among the other FD top responders you know to help us clear the backlog by June 19th, that would be awesome! More details about this test are on this page on Meta. Let her know if you have any questions and feel free to get in touch with other FD leaders about this if you want :) Cheers,
Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 23:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Karishmeh Felfeli

Hi Callannecc, did you intend to get Karishmeh Felfeli deleted as it seems? You haven't voted at the AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now, thank you. Callanecc (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be as well to sign too! ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Oops, thank you. Callanecc (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

William A Whitcombe

Good afternoon, I'm a little confused with this submission as each time I resubmit with the requested details the goal posts seem to keep changing. I was orginally told that this was a notable enough person and to submit appropriate references, which I have done. I now being told that he is not notable enough. What must I do to resolve this? Thanks, Andy Simonevans680 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Simon, I've spoken with User:Graeme Bartlett and we still don't think that general notability and notability (people) has been established. You need to provide references which show that Whitcombe has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - see here. Callanecc (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a fantastic job!

Callanecc, thank you so much from me and the MoodBar research team for your work on clearing the Feedback Dashboard backlog! You and the other responders have doubled the number of responses to feedback in the past few days. I wanted to let you know that in 4 more days, the MoodBar will be temporarily disabled, so you won't see any new feedback coming in for a little while. This is just to get a sample of users to compare to the ones who could give feedback and get responses from you – it'll be back soon. So get all of your responding in now, because you might have to go through a bit of Feedback Dashboard withdrawal next week :) Thanks again, and keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your response to my issue... Thankfully, it resolved itself and I was able to make the changes that I wanted to make. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonz02152001 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Chargemaster

Hi Callanecc,

I'm a bit confused with my post. I uploaded something I wrote on Chargemaster and I can't find it anywhere.

Why is this?

Thanks,

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickb123pha (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickb123pha (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to article review

Hi.

I saw that you rejected my article of the "Parshvanath College of Engineering" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Parshvanath_college_of_engineering) because it seemed more like an advertisement rather than a neutral encyclopedia entry.

I have made some changes that may make it better.

But I'd like to point out that I also included an "Issues and controversies" section at the end of my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Parshvanath_college_of_engineering#Issues_and_controversies) that describes the negative points about the college. An advertising article would not display such information.

And my article seems to be much better, more detailed, more neutral and more professional than some other "stub"-like articles about engineering colleges that are there on Wikipedia.

Please consider these points. And please also note that this is just the article's beginning on Wikipedia. It can be further improved with time (with images, further information, etc.), not only by myself, but also by other contributors.

Sincerely, Sarthak Sharma.

Intelligentguy89 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of standards which are used when accepting articles on WikiProject Articles for Creation has been the issue of many discussions amongst reviewers. It has been established that since we have the opportunity we will use it to improve articles well beyond the point that they may be CSDed.
In its current state it looks like a sales pitch - "this is what we can provide for you, and these are some issues which we will tell you up front". You need to add a history, as well as some basic facts like number of employees, number of students, turnover or profits, etc.
The article also needs to comply with the general notability guideline (also see WP:GNG) as well as the notability guideline for organisations, primarily through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The primary sources which the article has now are fine for facts about the college, but do not demonstrate notability, or expel problems with advertising.
Callanecc (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AFC

Just wanted to say thanks for inviting me to join Wikiproject AFC, I have joined and have begun reviewing AFCs. Athleek123 06:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you ever need any help, advice, or a second pair of eyes (and brain) feel free to ask me and I'll see what I can do. If you aren't already I suggest you use the AfC Helper it makes it A LOT quicker and easier. Callanecc (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I definitely will contact you if I need any help, and I am already using AFCH helper, but thanks for the pointer. Athleek123 06:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Still alive

Jaggs's victim is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because there was very little information (such as a link to another wikipedia page, or even the rest of Jaggs's name) or a reference given. Callanecc (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
A Google search with "William Jaggs" will produce many sources in the national papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to add him I suggest you first propose it on the article's talk page. If you want to add him you will need to provide a reliable source for both what he did as well as a reliable source which proves that he attended Harrow School. Callanecc (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war?

(Refers to article: Ed_Kosiski)

Hi Callanecc, Thanks for stopping by. Yeah, I agree, this has taken on an aspect of "Edit war". However, I urge you to review the associated changes. I _think_ I am reverting to a better state that is more appropriate for a BLP article. Although, I suspect that everyone _thinks_ that. :) So, I don't _think_ this is just me editing to my "preferred version", I _think_ it is me reverting what amounts to vandalism. Anyway, I read through your talk page and found out about the dispute resolution and notice pages and went to check on that where I noted that another user has already submitted this page to that forum. here I will await resolution in that forum and abide with whatever they decide. Thanks again. --174.70.63.4 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 

(Refers to article: Nicosia) Callanecc (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. (see below) Thanks anyway, will take a wikibreak and let other users deal with it. --Seksen (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And I would also like to point out that I am consistently trying to use the talk page, but no one is responding. Thank you again. --Seksen (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And plus what I say here. You seem to have an impression that there is a consensus for not including North Nicosia-related material. That impression is wrong. I think knowing this would be useful for you. --Seksen (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I know I am speaking so much, but lastly, I would also like to ask you to re-insert the sourced population figures which are not subject to any dispute between users. --Seksen (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that you using the talk page (and well done), but perhaps a better way to deal with it is to get the page semi/fully protected and perhaps ask for help on an appropriate appropriate noticeboard or go for dispute resolution; this avoids the problem which I saw and encourages people to discuss it rather than just change each other's edits. The reason I asked everyone not to post everything is that it was just creating problems. I wasn't saying that there was a consensus not to include information about Northern Nicosia, I just did it to avoid further problems. Callanecc (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry about removing the population data (and thank you for using sources) I've put it back. The reason I did it is because during an "edit war" (especially one which isn't just reverts) is that the artice can be changed (eg extra spaces, table and gallery markup changed). Sorry about the inconvenience and thanks for letting me know to put it back (and not doing it yourself and possibily creating more problems). Callanecc (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the wikibreak, if you can I suggest you stay around for a while and contribute to the (hopeful) discussion. You seem to have a lot to contribute and are willing to do so. Don't worry about talking too much, better to discuss then having what's been happenning (which I realise you were trying to discuss). Callanecc (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, the truth is, I am also concerned about finding an article to translate to Turkish and concentrating on it, so I have been thinking about this for some days :) But thanks for your kind suggestion, I will consider it in case there is any discussion. As for the consensus issue, we already have content about North Nicosia in the article and about the north in a number of other articles such as Cyprus (and there are images there as well), so I cannot see a reason why not to have images where we have information (well, considering how the (Greek) Cypriot government tries to make the north seem to the world as a place stuck in the 70s and everything in there as decaying, and that as a result many Greek Cypriots view it this way, I can see why these edits are done - by the way, the dispute was mainly about the images, not the content). I think what we need is having a discussion about not including north-related content and images. --Seksen (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • My belief (and I'm happy to admit I could have this wrong) is that images are content. So it in that sense it is a content problem. And if some pieces of content are fine (such as the stuff already there about Northern Nicosia) and some are going to cause the type of conflict which has happened. I think the best way to fix it is to have a complete and full discusion about the issues involved, and then clearly showing the consensus so that from then on it any edit against it would be against a consensus. Callanecc (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, but the main problem here is to get the others involved in discussion. With "content" I meant the prose. And another thing, if there is going to be content about North Nicosia (which is currently the case), that needs to have a due weight, in the landmarks section and the education section and so on. And if images are also content, they also need to have a due weight given to both sides. But what the anonymous user is objecting to is having any images of North Nicosia (it could even be a FP, but still, no), and this is a clear violation of WP:DUE under these conditions. No need for talkback, I will be monitoring the page for some time. --Seksen (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • So if it were to be made clear than there wouldn't be a problem saying that it was a clear breach of consensus, however at the moment it isn't clear on the talk page that content about North Nicosia should be included in the article. But I see what you mean, however I still think the way it happened could have been better managed/controlled (such as through warning the IP user who refused it to be allowed which could lead to a block; or asking for the article to be semi/fully protected so that everything could calm down a bit). Callanecc (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I see your point, but the IP is dynamic, so I do not think he/she would receive my message as he/she makes a couple of edits and then is not around for a few days. But I will try to follow your advice in case I am involved in such a situation again. --Seksen (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This was not vandalism

Hi!

The edit was made by myself while not logged in. It was not vandalism as identified in your edit summary here and, contrary to the template message here, there is an edit summary when the list was deleted. The addition of the bullet list of characters was reverted multiple times by multiple editors on this article in the past and it is a practice standard on GA and FA-class film articles, especially when a prose section on casting exists. Maybe it's not reasonable for me to expect that you check the prior edits and edit summaries pertaining to this issue but, by the same token, it may be unreasonable for you to extract bad faith from an edit where content was removed rather than added.

Please be careful using automated tools when reverting suspected vandalism. When primarily focusing on being quick rather than accurate, more harm than good can come as a result. Had it been a new IP user rather than myself forgetting to log in, they might have been intimidated of the project for good. Sometimes a first impression that a new IP user gets of Wikipedia can, unfortunately, be the only impression they get.

Thanks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't realise it was standard practice on GA & FA-class articles, not to have cast lists in prose sections. Just a quick note, from my (while I admit it is somewhat limited) experience the removal of content (especailly of whole sections) is quite reasonable that the removal of large amounts of content can (and usually is) in bad faith. But on the other note, my sincere appologies. I admit I was probably a little preoccupied when I was looking at the article and the fact that it was a GA-class article probably would have pushed me further to revert you removing it. Sorry, Callanecc (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my comment so well, I appreciate the effort to be receptive to criticism.
I think you're absolutely right that removal of large amounts of content can usually be in bad faith. But unless the content removed constitutes a really large and significant part of an article (eg, removal of the "History" section from United States) or the removal has an edit summary along the lines of "JIMMY WALES CAN SUCK MY ASS!!!!!", bad faith may not be quite so obvious and a bit of additional homework and diplomacy from established editors should be employed. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and they don't need to know the rules before they do so. The burden, therefore, is on us (established editors, that is) to be very certain (more than just making a reasonable assumption) that the edit is vandalism before we label it as such and template a newbie.
Anyhow, you took my comment as a gentleman (or gentleperson, I am a supporter of GNL) and there's more than a little to be thankful for there.
Have a good one! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No worries and thanks for letting me know, and I've learnt something from it which will be helpful in the future. Thanks, and sorry again, Callanecc (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's intentional

Canoe River train crash (diff) Callanecc (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I discussed it in talk. Let FA author Wehwalt have a look at it and decide. If he wants to put the infobox back, that can be done, but still using the layout of pictures. Just let it stand for a day or two. So the FA author can look at it. It is a significant layout change (with thought behind it). Not a recent changes patroller type thing. 64.134.168.97 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for replying, good luck :) Callanecc (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, man. Peace.  :-) 64.134.168.97 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

 Hello, Callanecc/Archive 1! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering why you left a invitation on my talk page. Having read through WP:CUVA it seems to be primarily for editors who are just starting off with fighting vandalism. If I get rollback rights it would qualify more to be an instructor than a student. If you have been through the Academy, would be please let me know what the purpose of enrolling would be? Thanks, Callanecc (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
First of all, we template every rollback request at WP: PERM. Second of all, we have a mixture of both students with and without rollback. If you already have rollback, than we can teach you how to use other tools, such as STiki, Huggle, and Igloo. We already have several students with rollback in the academy, most of whom are learning Huggle. Also, just having rollback doesn't qualify you as an instructor. If you are interested, than please join today! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, if I get rollback I'll consider it. I am aware of the instructor requirements (the others of which I meet). Callanecc (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Great! If you want to be an instructor, just add yourself to our list! We have a student who meets the requirements for instructor by a long shot and was offered to be nominated for Administrator, but he declined it. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This was not vandalism either

I'm not sure why you thought my edit was vandalism, it removed content that was almost comical in its argument "the show employs actors therefore what happens in the show is fake" and is transparently link spam to a site that applies that same "criticism" to numerous tv shows. I noted that in the edit comment. The site is looking to attract traffic, and is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. 67.174.199.196 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page you need to have a look at the discussion on the article's talk page, before you remove the section. From what is says there, the section stays. Perhaps I shouldn't have reverted it as "vandalism" but I still would have placed the warning on your talk page including the more personal message because you removed a section against the agreement on the talk page (whether agreed by default, tenuously or not). Callanecc (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I read that but didn't see any agreement. What was there was a reasoned argument against having the section and a challenge to provide a reasonable reference for the section. The reply(s) were pretty incoherent and didn't address the issue, yet the section was there. I don't dispute the need to respect existing controversies that are in-process but this "controversy" was manufactured and unsupported. I don't know all the details of WP procedure but I imagine where the evidence points to it not being a valid reference and the likely outcome is that it'll be removed the onus is on the other side to make support their point before it's restored. That would seem logical to me. 67.174.199.196 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of the discussion on the talk page was that there was evidence to support it, and that the reference which was there (westcoasttruth) would do "for now". However, given that there has not been any more references added I've come down on the remove side (see my edit summary on dummy edit and comment on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


Your request for rollback

Hi Callanecc/Archive 1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - TP 13:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

punjabi fuddu

i cant see where you added that ...you better change that ...i dont give a damn ..if it doesnt loook good...that article ois a load of bullshot to put it blunt..so go ahead block me if you can as if i dont own another piece of computer...i can edit it as many times as i like piss drinking hindu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.181.184 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Have another look it's at the top, this is the edit I added it with. Callanecc (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an egregious personal attack and has been reported to administrators. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Recall RfA question

Could you consider removing your recall question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SwisterTwister? It has been discussed that the question is unhelpful in RfA's and causes unnecessary troubles for the candidate no matter how they answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The same applies for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zagalejo. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Questions removed, however I have a quick question on the subject. How does saying yes they are open create unnecessary troubles? Is it just that it can be said later that their RfA succeeded on the premise that they said they would be open to recall. Callanecc (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
No the problem occurs because there are a number of editors who will oppose any editor who responds to a question about recall. It was discussed at WT:RFD not to long ago, and basically the consensus appears that while related opposes are ridiculous, it is better not to ask the question. Thanks for removing those by the way. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean WT:RFA? KTC (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I must've been tired  Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't find an oppose based on not being open to recall right now, but an oppose based on being open to recall can be seen at [6]. KTC (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I can imagine what the side you couldn't find would be, so don't worry about finding one :). Callanecc (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The question isn't the problem, it's the irrational responses to it that are problematic. But, in the interest of the candidate, it makes their lives a bit easier if the question is not posed at RfA. -Scottywong| chat _ 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis M. Lynch

The Dennis M. Lynch page continues to be hacked. I am going in to restore. For instance, the website name listed under the picture continues to be changed by someone. The change leads to a wrong address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.235.228 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki !

Hello, Callanecc, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray 06:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting

Thank you for your positive feedback to me. Johngabriel.ibay (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, if you need any help or advice in the future, feel free to leave me a message and I'll see if I can help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • email) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Riley Huntley's talk page.
Message added 20:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 20:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks sir

its my luck thati m the member of one great website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitrajgaba (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are enjoying Wikipedia! You don't need to call me (or any other user on Wikipedia) sir, just address them by their username or first name if they give it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit waring? and what's his problem??

I don't understand what's going on in mammography. I put in new lead info, shorten it radically on request, guy puts very outdated and misinfo back in and calls me a edit warrior?32cllou (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So I guess i'm dealing with editors who are reps of the medical industry complex (re military industrial complex) conflict of interest?32cllou (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see any evidence that the other editors on that page have a conflict of interest. It seems like a normal content dispute to me, and it should not involve the motivations of other editors unless there is clear evidence that someone is trying to disrupt Wikipedia. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself. 32cllou, you need to be careful to assume good faith and comment on content, not on the contributor. I still don't see a reason for me to get involved, however, you need to be very careful to make sure you don't get into an other edit war as this may lead to a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
What is a edit war (define) and block? How do I block other editors? All my edits after they started warring were tweeks toward meeting their objections.32cllou (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems like changes now respected, so no prb. Odd that they show up so fast though the exising was so bad. And odd they make changes that all dilute the paraphrase. Odd that they send me on snipe hunts (to not relevant wiki writing guideline pages. Odd they send me war warnings. I asked about edit wars but one of the i think warring editors provided that page. Odd they are not constructive in their edits, initially simply undo lots of work. But thanks again for help.32cllou (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:EW and WP:BP. If you have a problem in the future let me know (when it starts) and I'll see what I can do to help. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits

Any particular reason you removed a blp prod from Technotic? Think you need to have a recap on WP:RS...--Otterathome (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the article anymore becuase it's been deleted, but if I removed the BLPPROD I would have decided that at least one of the references was reliable enough. I quick look over WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF and thinking how to word messages like this might also be of assistance to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I would look at those two pages if you left a message for me in the first place. Which reference is reliable then?
  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]
  4. [10]
  5. [11]
  6. [12]
  7. [13]
I can provide the full article if you think that would help.--Otterathome (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies, having seen them again they aren't reliable, don't know what I thought I saw in them. Sorry about that, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rational Automation Framework

Hi--

I just resubmitted this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/IBM_Rational_Automation_Framework) with more external references, from sources like Gartner and a Hurwitz.com study. I am puzzled that the article was rejected; I was very careful to present only objective information with no marketing slant, and I provided a number of non-IBM links. It seems to me that comparable articles from other IBM products, as well as from competitors, have poorer or almost nonexistent references--for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Center_Configuration_Manager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Fusion_Middleware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentum

I am not trying to get away with something here--all I'm trying to do is get a bare-bones article in place about a significant piece of software. I have carefully studied all the articles on how to write for Wikipedia and done my homework in terms of tracking down significant references. If you still find the article unsuitable, I would really appreciate a more detailed explanation of what your expectations are and where my article has failed to meet them.

Thanks!

Lshiner (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the extra work, I've accepted it and moved it into main space (IBM Rational Automation Framework). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you direct me of provide?

So, I couldn't sleep initially last night having watched this news on induced birth harm to children http://abcnews.go.com/Health/birth-37-38-weeks-linked-lower-math-reading/story?id=16683067#.T_MJqPVLFh6 since that's what prob happened to my neighbor wonderful kid but slow development and had scary breathing probs first year. Both prob due to induced like 34 weeks. Need to find the article talking about resperatory harm.

How can I get the Pediatrics and OBGYN Journal articles mentioned? Can I cite the ABC report to say states (Oregon and Arizona) and hospitals are moving to limit induced births to if there's proven high risk otherwise to mothers, or at least 39 weeks into pregnancy? I seem to remember that doctors aren't sure when a woman became pregnant, and will look for that too.32cllou (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the rules regarding medical sources, I suggest you ask User:Jmh649, as he has a pretty good idea of the rules and doesn't seem to mind helping. Let me know if not, and I'll see what I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I put the same Q to his talk and no response yet. You didn't understand my Q. The ref is great qualiity but I don't have access to those Journals.32cllou (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
How do I reference this TED presentation in prostate cancer and guess my next project is treatment of heart disease (they both can be easily quickly reversed)? http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_ornish_on_healing.html32cllou (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
If you leave a message on the article's talk page asking someone to include the journals it may work. Although I suspect Doc James could be of a lot more help (he may have access or know where to get them from). Regarding the ABC News report see WP:MEDRS#Popular press, but if you want to include it the template to use is Template:Cite news.
I suggest Template:Cite video for the YouTube clip (TED presentation), although make sure it complies with WP:MEDRS.
Also have a look at the respose from the Teahouse. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Cntras's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cntras (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

and again. -Cntras (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Campusdada for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Campusdada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campusdada until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at LuK3's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Luke (Talk) 13:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dr. Zaius

The article was redirected to List of Planet of the Apes characters on 22 February 2011, but then reverted six months later [14]. Since then, nothing else has been added except additional cruft.

Additionally, discussion is not necessary. The other articles were merged into List of Planet of the Apes characters without discussion.

165.125.144.133 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that it was reverted (twice) that means that there needs to be a discussion of some sort, being WP:BOLD should really only be done once or twice (at most - otherwise it's vandalism). I can't comment on the other articles as I don't know their specific circumstances. The best thing to do would have been to open a discussion on the article's talk page and wait a few days, especially given that the article has been edited recently. We usually don't follow time constraints on Wikipedia, so there is no reason it had to be done as soon as possible. In any case you have done it now, and I'm not going to revert it again. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 19:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This move may have been a bit abrupt, but I found it odd we had only one Apes character article. It made the template look rather odd as well. If the whole Zaius article has been replicated on the List of Planet of the Apes characters page, as appears to be the case, then this should stand. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that was my opinion - I only reverted because it was a major change without consensus, but I see no reason to revert again (as you said). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Cartman

Thebuck093 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Eric Cartman is not a living person, but rather a fictional one. I do not understand exactly what error you think I have made; can you explain, please?

My apologies, I thought it was a real person. I've undone my revert (back to your initial edit), feel free to remove the warning I left on your talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Face

The snippet I added to the page Face is just as relevant as the part in the next thought about GWB's ears; it isn't necessary to add the part about the elephant's ears, but it is true nonetheless. That thought would be complete at "enlarged". Yet, it remains; so why does my factually accurate addition get removed? 24.179.34.43 (talk)

The addition needs to be WP:Verifiable as well as appropriate to the encyclopedia. I don't beleive that the addition about smelling pickles is appropriate, nor is it appropriate in the section you put it in. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't readd the information - it is not appropriate to the article or to the section you added it in. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The section about elephant ears is a reflection of what caricatures were made of George Bush. Smelling pickles has absolutely nothing to do with the section. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Harley Flanagan

Did you mean to revert me or the edit by 67.189.188.150? All you did was to remove my references. I'll leave it up to you. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Three revert rule!

The user has got many more warnings. Most probably 10–12 (if I count his photo upload warnings then more than 20). Plus he is doing WP:SOCK using 3-4 or more accounts. I have not reported WP:SOCK, since his main account has most number of edits in that article, so I am deliberately little slow here. Previously I was writing edit summary in details (do this, do that), but, now, I am just tired by saying same thing again and again that rowspan=1 is not necessary, WP:MIRROR should not be added, so, you'll find my latest edit summaries are short Author's name should not be editor's name etc etc. Please don't report WP:SOCK in case you get involved in this edit warring, It'll sad if he looses all his accounts. --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed a whole heap of warnings, at least now there is a current lvl 4 and a 3RR warning, so if the disruptive editing continues it is easier and quicker to get the account blocked. I noticed that your summaries were getting shorter and more abrupt, hopefully the fact that another editor has warned him/her will make them think twice (which it seems to have done). I'll leave the WP:SOCK to you, though I do suggest that you report (but it's up to you). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
They could have another complaint against me, I have removed 1 or 2 of his legitimate refs. But, I think it is a way to fool others. For example if in an edit I put 90% spam and only 10% legitimate information, you need to manually edit that page and remove 90% spam to save remaining 10% good information. They are doing the same thing. Previously I tried even that (manual editing). But, as, said, very tired now.
Also see references 5–16 here, firstly author's name should not be editor's name, second, mostly unreliable refs, thirdly, which I want to highlight, anyone can understand they are doing sock-puppetry by seeing their same edit style. But, generally sock-puppets generally try to hide that they are doing sock-puppetry. But, they are doing it openly, also leaving me messages from multiple accounts, I think it is more a foolishness, that's why I asked for not reporting. But, if you keep this page in your watchlist and he continues the same thing, I thing you will be also tired after few days. :) --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is the same, as far as I am concerned that would be a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (from WP:Vandalism) given that you have tried to manually undo the bad ones and they were put back - have a look at my revision explaination: User:Callanecc/reversion. Have you warned the account/s about WP:SOCK (if you have and it doesn't stop I suggest reporting), also see WP:ILLEGIT (I think the behviour falls within this).
In any case it doesn't seem that s/he has edited again. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of shamelessly stealing it from your page and put under my sub page, but I don't think it'll be necessary. I have posted some suggestions here: User_talk:Callanecc/reversion#Suggestion_on_July_07_2012 --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Posted a new message in User_talk:Callanecc/reversion#Suggestion_on_July_07_2012 --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at SwisterTwister's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Text From Dog

Mea culpa — I'm much better at speedying than remembering to close AFDs, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all, would you mind check to see if I did it correctly (this is the second one I've done)?. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hemet, California

why dont you like the truth about hemet? this line added by: User:71.104.252.172, User talk:71.104.252.172 .

You are adding controversial original research. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

that is knowledge around the whole town. if you lived here then you would know. Counterargument? this line added by:

Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, everything must be verifiable. To sign your posts on talk pages, just add four tildes (~~~~) - following is my signature. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.city -data .com/so/so-Hemet-California.html this is to show the sex offenders live in this town which i live in.71.104.252.172 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC) fowling the rail road track on google map the train could take you all way to riverside71.104.252.172 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Even with that source I would be very hesitant to include it. But if you want you can propose it on the article's talk page - though I suspect it won't be included. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

http://thevalleychronicle .com/local-news/item/1943-mechanical-issues-not-to-blame-for-crash-outside-of-high-school, http://thevalleychronicle .com/opinion/item/1913-letter-to-the-editor, http://thevalleychronicle .com/local-news/item/1939-crime-reports-throughout-the-san-jacinto-valley, http://thevalleychronicle .com/local-news/item/1521-hemet-man-charged-with-sexual-abuse 71.104.252.172 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to suggest the changes on the article's talk page, not here. Write what you want to add (a general summary) with reliable sources on the article's talk page and let other people comment on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hmm ... on the one hand I am flattered by that expression of trust. I can see the need and see where I could be helpful on the user-renaming end. But ... it does also include closing RFAs, and I don't have a lot of experience hanging out there (which might be a plus). I just worry about the time it might take.

I see you have persuaded at least Beeblebrox and someone else to go for it. Let's see how that goes. Give it a month or so more and I might be interested.

(Sorry I didn't get more of a chance to talk to you at Wikimania). Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, I wasn't at Wikimania anyway. If you are interested in a month, let me know and I'll be happy to support. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Unfortunately, my brain does not seem to be wired up for real editing. I suspect I am destined to be a life-long Huggle jockey. I might try writing tools, I've written tons of code. Thanks for the inspiration! Jim1138 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, now I've had a look at your auto-edit count [15]. If you do get interested at some stage, would you let me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

opinions are strong

I was not attacking, i just have a VERY strong opinion that the article is still VERY POV and that the title of the article is WONG and does not stand up to the pillars. I expressed my opinion very strongly to make a point. Aperseghin (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Aperseghin, the way to go about changing the title of the article is to follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves, not manual copy and pasting without discussion. KTC (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


ok so i added some more information on the talk page that i believe should help. its with regards to pov redirects redirecting to NPOV title. Aperseghin (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hannesp

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Vertium's talk page.
Message added 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc/Archive_1&oldid=1151051883"