Misplaced Pages

User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:15, 12 November 2015 editJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →Possible post - Jaakobou← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:01, 8 January 2025 edit undoCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,478 editsm Reverted edits by 158.62.73.195 (talk) to last version by CallaneccTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Page and group editnotices ] & ] --> <!-- Page and group editnotices ] & ] -->{{User:Callanecc/Header}}
{{User:Callanecc/Break}}{{User talk:Callanecc/Header}} {{User:Callanecc/Break}}
{{Talk header}}
{{User:Callanecc/Template/Email}}
{{User:Callanecc/Template/Usertalkback}}
{{User:Callanecc/Template/TPS}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Callanecc/Archive index
|mask=User talk:Callanecc/Archive <#>|indexhere=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(5d) | algo = old(32d)
| archive = User talk:Callanecc/Archive %(counter)d | archive = User talk:Callanecc/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 20 | counter = 28
| maxarchivesize = 150K | maxarchivesize = 250K
| minthreadsleft = 3
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} {{search archives|prefix=User talk:Callanecc}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 3
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadsleft = 2
}} }}


== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
== Sorry ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice-->


==That IP is back again==
I'm sorry Callanecc for vandalising. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:40, 17 September 2015‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
Hi Callanecc, That IP is back edit warring on the ] again and has now decided to . I see they have on the ] page, so I'm not the only one who is struggling with this individual. Someone on the Godley history says the range should be banned, but as they hop IPs to different countries, I'm not sure that's going to be much of a barrier, but who knows. Thanks - ] (])
:I've blocked {{IPrange|213.55.128.0/17}} from editing those two pages for a week for edit warring. I did 36 hours last time so we can keep increasing as needed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::That's great - thanks very much indeed! - ] (]) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


==Happy Adminship Anniversary!==
== Review of past issues ==
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->

{{ombox
I'd like to have the way I've been pushed off Misplaced Pages reviewed. Where would be the best venue for a public review? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
| name = Happy Adminship
:Hi Jaakobou, without more information I really can't give you much more advice than to review ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
| image = ]
::Have you heard any news about some of the stabbing attacks in Israel? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
| imageright = ]
:::No sorry I haven't, but how does that related to Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);
::::There is an ongoing wave of attacks on Jews (more than 30 in 1.5 months; mostly stabbing attacks), a part of the overall "popular resistance" strategy adopted at the Sixth Fatah Conference in August 2009. Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot; this is at the core of what was used to herd me off the Misplaced Pages. Arab 'mukawama' (doctrine of conflict enhancement) and seem improper for Misplaced Pages user-space. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
::::(continued) There are a few editors who didn't see the real life effect of this (e.g. more than 30 attacks the past 1.5 months; mostly stabbing attacks). With respect to the fact that people are being attacked <b>daily</b> in real life, I'm sure there is room to reintroduce the issues of user-space usage of "poetic" violence promotion (and wiki-cliques that may drop by soon to hail the validity of these).
| plainlinks = yes
::::Proper disclosure: I was herded off for misrepresenting this matter a few years ago (observing a consensus where it wasn't as strong as I thought it was). Perhaps, a few of the involved group of people mentioned above (e.g. {{ping|Timotheus Canens}}, {{ping|Foxj}}, {{ping|Kim Dent-Brown}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|Crazycomputers}}) would be able to see the light now that a couple years passed and there's a clearer wave of stabbings and killings and videos to boot. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
| text = <big>'''Happy adminship anniversary!'''</big><br />Hi Callanecc! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your ]. Enjoy this special day! ] (]) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

}}
:::::I'm still not sure what you want me (as a Misplaced Pages admin) to do about it. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::I hope you find it reasonable, that I request of you in this time of heavy real life violence (which is leaking out and inspiring more violence) - to open a poll for other admins regarding Jew-stabbing poetic violence themes (Similar to ") not being allowed on user-space. It didn't ring right when there were a few attacks per month, and doesn't ring right now, when there are daily stabbings. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::: I'm still not sure what you'd like us as administrators to actually do about this. Can you at least link to something that's on Misplaced Pages we can look at? It goes without saying that there's little we can do about the Israel–Palestine conflict. — ] 14:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: {{ping|Foxj}}
:::::::: Thinking long-term, I'd like to see it written down officially, that poetic militancy and other 'mukawama' writings are not to be tolerated (unless it is directly related to editing). This is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages and would allow speedy handling of current and future occurrences. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Another stabbing attack today. 40 year old civilian stabbed in the chest outside a supermarket (he might not make it). I'm not saying the text on a Wikipedian's user-page makes all these attacks, but doesn't belong on this site. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Foxj}}
:Not yet 13:00 and its the second attack today... a on a gate-guard to a small locality. He responded quickly and his injury is categorized as 'light'. The other three attacked by a car earlier were not so lucky. Can we get rid poetic violence off user-pages in the Israeli-Arab conflict category? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Callanecc}} Do you figure this can be raised for the ARBCOM committee to explicitly clarify that 'poetic militancy' (on either side of the conflict) is inappropriate for the purpose of the project? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*It sounds like (and I might have read this wrong) that what you're describing is already prohibited (by ] and possibily ]). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
**The existence of these has (one might notice with the diff I provided) not been enough. There is at least one more current example of 'goals/polemic' that I've found (looking at user-space of editors of stabbing related articles) but my focus lies elsewhere. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it would seem that the policy is not clear enough, and thus a number of editors have been circumventing it even when repeatedly asked to remove such materials. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
***Ok, so the best thing to do it to ask them (politely) on their talk page to remove it with a description of how the guideline I linked above applies (why it's not permitted according to the policy). If that doesn't work, if it's a whole page follow the steps at ] or if it's part of a userpage post on ] with a brief neutral summary of what you believe does not meet the guideline, and why that you have tried to resolve it on their talk page first. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

****There is a real problem where your suggestions fail. Chances are, an MFD/ANI about a single instance will be quickly derailed. When it comes to a small country like Israel, phrases that would not pass otherwise find a way to stay in. This matter is pretty serious, as between October 1 - November 8, 2015, there were 62 stabbings, 7 shootings and 8 car rammings. This is heavily promoted by poetic militancy (see: ). Despite my real life concerns and the legitimacy of the suggestion, my past experiences tell me to avoid the MFD route. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC) + clarify <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
****{{ping|FunkMonk}}, {{ping|Graeme Bartlett}} the above text includes two of your notes and your response would be welcome. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure I follow, is this about allowing some kind of user boxes that denounce stabbings? Can't see how that would be a problem... ] (]) 10:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|FunkMonk}}
:::::::The opposite. Use of user-space to promote militancy
:::::::e.g.
:::::::- "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" (against Isrsaelis - quote from advocacy to "justified violence")
:::::::- "the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." (Palestinian to a Jew - poetic militant take on Shakespeare)
:::::::p.s. two more stabbing attacks today and the day is still young (not yet 13:00) -
:::::::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC) + justified violence note <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::My earlier remark still stands: "When I looked at this earlier for Jaakobou I found the text disturbing and disagreeable. However most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Misplaced Pages user pages, so I did nothing about it." I will add that Misplaced Pages would be better off without those quotes on user talk pages. However I don't think that recent events have aggravated the statements. They are quite in character for many from this group and I expect that most Palestinians are hostile all the time in this respect, so such statements are not out of my expectation. Perhaps if individuals cannot tolerate their presence we can devise a style sheet that would render them invisible. ] (]) 11:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Callanecc}}{{ping|FunkMonk}}{{ping|Graeme Bartlett}}
:1) incitement to militancy is a crime in a few countries, e.g., the UK, France, Australia.
:2) My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal.
:Considering the above comments by FunkMonk and Graeme Bartkett, I reiterate my suggestion regarding a clarification in POLEMIC. If paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are passable law-wise (debatable), it does not make it right for the Wiki-project. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
::If you believe clarification is needed (regarding what is/is not permitted) then the best thing to do would be to start a discussion (or ]) at ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

===Possible post - Jaakobou===
{{ping|Callanecc}}
I've prepared the following text. Before I consider posting it to ], I'd appreciate your input: if you see it as making the issue clear enough without 'lecturing' or making it a personal issue with anyone on the project.
:I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent ]. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to , , and ) is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK, France, Australia. My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project.
Thank you in advance, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|FunkMonk}}, {{ping|Graeme Bartlett}}, {{ping|Foxj}}. Do you find the above text clear enough? Thank you all for your contributions here. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
::Certainly that text sounds OK to start a discussion about it. You may also wish to propose a clear modification to the ] content. ] (]) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree. And the change could be as simple as a footnote stating that poetic militancy is not permitted under ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

'''Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou'''
* '''''Original:'''''
* ]al statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered ]).
* '''''Suggestion A: Laconic version'''''
* ]al statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered ]). Poetic militancy is not permitted under ].
* '''''Suggestion B: Expanded version'''''
* ]al statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered ]). Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are illegal in several countries and should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki).

My thoughts:
- Suggestion A: Not without merit, is a simple footnote. Whether this is the community's preferred version and whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. It is always possible that even an extended version would sometimes falter.<p>
- Suggestion B: To cut down on the 'circumvention factor'. Perhaps too much, but weighing brevity vs. results, cutting down on room for interpretation where real-world conflicts and political agendas are involved. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter.
Thoughts? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


==Io Saturnalia!==
:I'd go with a combination: suggest that {{xt|Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted}} be added to the end of the dot point, or that it be included as a footnote. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you again for the input. I've gone ahead and posted the note and rephrase suggestion at the UP talkpage. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
==Block query==
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
Now that you have been mentioned at ] by {{ping|Softlavender}}, I would kindly request you to read once again that I had posted with regards to lack of abuse of multiple accounts, in the sense that multiple accounts were never used in same discussion or pages.() And also that there was as no block evasion after the block.
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}


== Previously contentious topic blocked user on edit spree ==
I agree that these things could've been clarified on talk page right after the block, but I really didn't knew if "indefinite" block could be removed, it seemed like an "infinite" block. I made these clarifications about never socking on my talk page only after I got to know off-wiki that all blocks can be removed, that's why it took me more than a year.


Just checking, are you aware this user ], is currently making many edits to the Zionism page? Sorry I don't know how to link a talk page subject specifically, but you left something on their talk page regarding a block from the article. All of their edits are either on Israel, Zionism, or the Palestine-Israel conflict; so I just felt I should bring it to your attention. ] (]) 21:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
But as far as we know, if there is no abuse of multiple account, they are just not blocked, they are tagged as alternative instead.


:Hi @], I can't see any issues with DMH's editing to that article at the moment. The previous block was specifically for breaking the ] on the article rather than any other issue. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you can also alter my block log that there was no abuse of sock puppetry? Because some users seem to be making blocks as point for justifying things that are often irrelevant to others block log. Including this recent comment where a user is treating your block as fixated for as one year punishment, even though it was just due to my absence. ] (]) 09:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::Oh I see, I saw that they had a high number of reverted changes to the article recently which is why I brought it up, but looks like those have stayed reverted so you're right it is fine and unrelated to their prior block. Cheers ] (]) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==
:{{ping|D4iNa4}} Given a checkuser connected RealRx with Rafikhsk and the data can't be accessed any more it's pretty much impossible to prove that those two accounts (and hence including you) are not connected. Even with the reverts of each other you pointed out on your talk page when you were unblocked, as we've seen that type of behaviour from the same person with multiple account before. Sorry I can't help there. However as I said above I've made the point (and ANI) that I can't see how a block for sockpuppetry should affect any decision to be made in this instance. Having said that at, I also pointed out where your behaviour has been problematic so I'd appreciate it if you could address that at ANI. Regards, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Keeping it cool, I asked because only you can help with this. This account(D4iNa4) and RealRx() were editing on same days, why Elockid didn't blocked this account? I made only total of three accounts. Rafikhsk last time edited on 2011, so how he could be considered as sockmaster in 2014? Another proof is this CU by DoRD, who could confirm my two more accounts as mine, not Rafikhsk or any other. Why Elockid didn't blocked Rafikshk and it was only you who . There must have been some mistake like I said. If there was any connection with any other accounts DoRD would have said "likely", "possible" and named other accounts, but he didn't cause there were none. Can we discuss with both DoRd and Elockid that how they investigates, especially DoRD? As for ANI, thanks for mentioning, I have commented there. Please note that I always avoided edit warring and I was always the one to open talk page sections. ] (]) 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|D4iNa4}}, I'll have a closer look at everything later (including the ANI thread). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
== Your suggestion about the ] article ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For taking care of the vandalism ] and ]. Thank you! ] (]) 23:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
|}


:Thanks {{u|JeffSpaceman}}. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
At ] you've . In your mind, does that prevent any existing text from being removed from the article even as part of a sentence revision? The ancient meaning of "''revert''" was an edit that restored a previous version of the article. When people defined the 0RR that could be what they were thinking. But in practice, it's not so easy to draw the line. ] (]) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:I interpret it as removing part or whole of another defined person's edit. Which is not necessarily going to make the article look identical to what it did in the past, for example they might remove another person's change and add something in a different part of the article. My test for reverts is that I need to be able to see that part of the article the same as it was at some stage in the past. Therefore the rule is there to prevent edit warring rather than just getting in the way of allowing constructive editing. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


== Rejected page protection ==
== Idea ==


Please check the edit history . How am I supposed to do a dispute resolution thing since it's clear vandalism? "war flag" and naval flag has nowhere place in the infobox. Also multiple IP abuse. ] (]) 14:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm hardly your best friend, and it's not as if I think you're the perfect candidate, but considering how extremely weak the field is right now, I think you should consider running. (And who could refuse after such an effusive recommendation?) ] (]) 08:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:Well, that was a surprise! I was actually thinking I wouldn't nominate a week ago, but I've mostly changed my mind over the past few days (and your comment definitely made a big difference. This might sound corny but it really was heartening that you'd ask me (and put me at least close to being in a group with NE Ent and NYB). So, thank you! <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::No problem. ] (]) 15:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


:Pages: ] and ]. ] (]) 14:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Request ==
], can you check out? Thanks. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:Others generally don't subscribe to it, but you'd have to ask the Committee whether they can just request it or there has to be a need. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


::Start a discussion on the talk page like you would for any other content dispute and let the other party know it's there (on their talk page). If they then decide not to contribute you deal with it as edit warring. I'd point out that the IP has started a discussion at ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== EXIENT LIMITED History formerly Game Quest and formed by David Hawkins ==
I'm trying to figure out why you locked the article. You have a user violating 1rr on basis of rather weak argument.They are willing to let the Gaza listing stand but only if their unsourced original research is allowed. They lack a valid reason to actually remove the material. They didn't challenge it on the basis of it being unsourced and it is sourced. They challenged it on the basis of original research and simply not liking it.] (]) 05:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:The difference between blocking and protecting is primarily administrative discretion. There were a couple reasons I decided to protect:
:the first is that they are talking on the talk page and I'd rather encourage that rather than prevent (punish) that,
:and the second is that they were half-way through filing an arbitration request.
:The other thing is that depending on your definition of a "revert" wasn't one as it didn't revert a specific editor and/or revert to a specific previous version of the article.
:Primarily though it was the first one. Now that they have the DS alert there is much more latitude to act (ie deal with the DONTLIKE) as needed. I was actually tempted to revert the article back to the stable version but decided not to given that the protection was short. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:::That's reasonable. Thanks.] (]) 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
::::No worries. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Checkout https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04028014
== Discretionary Sanctions question on R&I ==


Please do not revert it back the article in the Oxford Mail is and was inaccurate, they attributed all my contributions to Charles Chapman a person whom has not being a part of the EXIENT story since 2011. I would like to keep the history as was written previously or I write the correct history but please do not put back something that is factually incorrect. ] (]) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Race & Intelligence is under discretionary sanctions broadly construed etc. Would this apply to disruptive and uncivil editing around race/ethnicity - but unrelated to its intersection with physical/mental characteristics? The wording is a bit ambiguous in the final decision, it says 'the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed' - I read that as it requires race/ethnicity in *combination* with their impact on human abilities to qualify, however 'broadly construed' has been in the past taken to include individual parts of active sanctions. (Essentially there is an uncivil editor arguing over the use of race or ethnicity, and while being able to warn on R&I sanctions would make it a lot easier, I dont think it applies, but wanted to get a second opinion, because if not, due to the lack of any enforcement of basic civility, its going to be difficult dealing with them.) ] (]) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:I would say that it's not covered given that the remedy specifically includes "intersection", but you'd need to ask the Committee for a definitive answer. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC) :I've left a further message on your talk page. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:01, 8 January 2025

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This is Callanecc's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 32 days 
If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please read User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me.
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If it was a warning or other notice please ping me so I know to look.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages is appreciated.

Nomination for deletion of Template:ACC terms

Template:ACC terms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

That IP is back again

Hi Callanecc, That IP is back edit warring on the List of Maggie Smith performances again and has now decided to label my edits as vandalism and call me a troll in the process. I see they have also edit warred and labelled as vandalism on the Janey Godley page, so I'm not the only one who is struggling with this individual. Someone on the Godley history says the range should be banned, but as they hop IPs to different countries, I'm not sure that's going to be much of a barrier, but who knows. Thanks - SchroCat (talk)

I've blocked 213.55.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from editing those two pages for a week for edit warring. I did 36 hours last time so we can keep increasing as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Misplaced Pages globe and sysop mopHappy adminship anniversary!
Hi Callanecc! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC) 		Party popper emoji

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Previously contentious topic blocked user on edit spree

Just checking, are you aware this user User talk:DMH223344, is currently making many edits to the Zionism page? Sorry I don't know how to link a talk page subject specifically, but you left something on their talk page regarding a block from the article. All of their edits are either on Israel, Zionism, or the Palestine-Israel conflict; so I just felt I should bring it to your attention. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Terrainman, I can't see any issues with DMH's editing to that article at the moment. The previous block was specifically for breaking the one-revert restriction on the article rather than any other issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see, I saw that they had a high number of reverted changes to the article recently which is why I brought it up, but looks like those have stayed reverted so you're right it is fine and unrelated to their prior block. Cheers 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking care of the vandalism here and here. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks JeffSpaceman. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rejected page protection

Please check the edit history . How am I supposed to do a dispute resolution thing since it's clear vandalism? "war flag" and naval flag has nowhere place in the infobox. Also multiple IP abuse. Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages: Flags of the Ottoman Empire and flag of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Start a discussion on the talk page like you would for any other content dispute and let the other party know it's there (on their talk page). If they then decide not to contribute you deal with it as edit warring. I'd point out that the IP has started a discussion at Talk:Flags of the Ottoman Empire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

EXIENT LIMITED History formerly Game Quest and formed by David Hawkins

Checkout https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04028014

Please do not revert it back the article in the Oxford Mail is and was inaccurate, they attributed all my contributions to Charles Chapman a person whom has not being a part of the EXIENT story since 2011. I would like to keep the history as was written previously or I write the correct history but please do not put back something that is factually incorrect. 212.56.159.202 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've left a further message on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)