Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 22 November 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Sorry

I'm sorry Callanecc for vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiggyFacey (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Question regarding WP:CDS proposal

I see that you have launched a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. I imagine that you will be returned. I wish you good luck in this. However, I wanted to ask you about your prior proposal at WP:CDS. As you may have noticed, in the case of recently launched CDS such as WP:GS/ECIG, enforcement has simply not occurred. I believe this is because the appropriate enforcement mechanisms simply are not in place. Your proposal would go a long way toward remedying this situation, and would hopefully nip situations like the failed electronic cigarettes case from occurring. If enforcement of the community sanctions had occurred, there would've been not need for a case. The case, trapped in a limbo for months, has not worked. The most recent successful example of GS enforcement was WP:GS/GG, which worked largely because of the establishment of WP:GS/GG/E. Have you any desire to move forward with the proposal? Increasing the efficacy of community DS will go a long way toward reducing the load of the Committee, remedying disputes, and reducing the kind of limbo that often exists following the establishment of CDS or other community general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, I'm not actually sure whether it'll make much difference as I suspect the main reasons for the lack of support is that admins and other simply aren't aware of them (WP:GS/SCW works quite well) and of how they should be enforced and I don't think the proposal would make too much difference. The main reason I say that is that ArbCom DS are very well known and respected (and the bits about expectations of administrators can and are enforced). I actually suspect that having a specific enforcement page for all community discretionary sanctions would help solve some of that (by having a specific place for enforcement requests rather than being lost in AN or ANI), however the community (in the past) hasn't been supportive of this so I'm not sure whether it's worth it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I largely agree with you. The fundamental problem is that AE has a dedicated group of administrators, and many watchers, which allows the existence of the sanctions to be publicised, and for them to be enforced. The SCW CDS work because, again, there is a group dedicated to enforcing them. The only way that I can figure to draw administrators into new CDS areas is to provide a simple enforcement mechanism, which such a noticeboard provides. Otherwise, CDS are largely useless. If the community is presented with evidence, such as the electronic cigarettes case, where CDS should've done something but didn't, I do believe that there is a potential for advancement of such a proposal. Something needs to be done to improve their efficacy, one way or the other. As you have the most knowledge in this area, I hope that might be able to provide a way toward making CDS more effective. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be worth proposing that a community sanctions enforcement page (for all sanctions imposed by the community or just for community general sanctions, including discretionary sanctions) be set up. What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth a shot. The dispute resolution process is off-kilter at the moment, and anything to make community sanctions more effective is worth trying. Community sanctions have the power to limit the need of the Arbitration Committee to get involved in every dispute. This leaves them to deal with only the most serious of disputes, or those that have to do with private information. If we can prevent the likes of the electronic cigarettes case, and indeed, can prevent the need for a case in areas as volatile as SCW&ISIL, that's quite worth it for the community's sake. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might like a look at this: User:RGloucester/Sanctions. It is a little history of the sanctions system, a guide if you will. It is a work-in-progress, for the moment. As I'm sure you know, there is quite a lot of confusion about what all the different terms and types of sanctions mean. I hope this essay will provide some clarity. RGloucester — ☎ 06:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a really good idea! Good job! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE

Best of luck, my friend. → Call me Hahc21 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see your username again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I check Misplaced Pages from time to time. Usually to see how things are going :) → Call me Hahc21 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

N0n3up

Hi C, FYI: User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Re_N0n3up_comments Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think one of the only ways forward (given I've already tired discussion and explanation) is for them to agree to a voluntary 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mail

-- John of Reading (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Byron Krieger

Hi there, my name is Evelyn Krieger. I am Byron Krieger's daughter and was updating some of the sources and references because the links were dead. Please restore the changes that I made. He just passed away and various news outlets may be writing up obituaries for him and I want them to have the most up to date information available. 66.31.158.152 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you.

Adding information and sources is good, however in the edits from you which I reverted you actually removed most of the content from the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read your email

Minor4th 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost email

I've emailed you via mediawiki on an ArbCom election matter, since I've reached my limit for today's emailing. Tony (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

New Twinkle speedy module

If you are still up for doing some testing, just add the following to your common.js:

setTimeout(function() {
	importScript('User:MusikAnimal/Gadget-twinklespeedy.js');
}, 500);

I know testing something that deletes stuff is a little sketch, but I'm quite confident you won't run into any erratic behaviour or delete something by accident. I anticipate only potential Twinkle interface issues, but we'll see :) Thank you for your assistance! — MusikAnimal 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! The only thing I'd suggest (and only if possible) would be that the deletion reason specifies which criterion the additional information is related to. For example, at Test (Callanecc) its not clear what Rationale: Created for testing purposes refers to (but that's fairly minor). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. This may be fixable, by you, by me, or any confirmed user who knows how to edit templates... That's because Twinkle now uses the template-generated deletion summaries! So this one is coming from {{db-multiple}}. I gave it a lot of thought and concluded going by the templates was best, as now we can maintain the deletion summaries in one place, in addition to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. Otherwise it'd be a lot of crazy logic to get the multi-rationale to look right, but as you're seeing here, the template doesn't quite do it right either. I still think it's probably fixable, but I'm not the best with those parser functions, so going to leave it someone who is. Going to wait for the code review from TTO before deploying this. Thanks for the help!By the way... the next big thing I was going to bring up probably at WP:AN was about functionality to issue both a tag to the user and delete the page. This is simply so they can be informed as to why their page got deleted, saving you the time of doing that if you were planning on it. The only problem is those speedy deletion notices say something like your page was inappropriate and may be deleted... click here to contest. Obviously that doesn't work because we've already deleted it. So I guess we need to work on allowing a |deleted=yes parameter to the templates that will change the wording to the past-tense, but still offer a friendly-ish message, or more stern message, depending on the rationale. Does that sound like something worthwhile? — MusikAnimal 05:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it does! Probably worth getting consensus before making changes to the template. I reckon it'd almost be worth creating a new template for an already done deletion given that the information needed to 'contest' is completely different. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Military Occupations

I saw you protected the page, and I saw your edit summary, and I just want you to now that the edit was not done by me. Yossiea 05:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Out of interest why did you want to let me know, especially since you've only edited the talk page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Because I'm in middle of changing my username so I might be blocked, like now. and also, if you saw an IP editing I was worried that you, or someone else would then instantly TBAN me without asking me if it was me or someone else. Yossiea 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So this IP is Yossiea? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one was. But I changed my name and was locked out of my account. Yossiea 06:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, and I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the talk page. I feel that I am being talked down to, not being given the benefit of AGF and I am told that my comment at the military project was no good, my postings are partisan, etc. I am trying hard to AGF and all that, and I am no trying to get into content and I am trying to match the list contents with what the lead says and I feel that what I am getting directed towards me is not fair. Sir Joseph 06:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Can you please take a look again. He is not AGF. He is violating WP:OWN, and he has reverted my edit even though I have included sources. Furthermore, he claims there was a consensus,yet there was no consensus. If you look at the archive, there were a few mentions of Tibet in the archive and no consensus has been reached and in fact the LAST entry ever was he himself asking to discuss inclusion of Tibet, so where is the consensus? Then, he seems to own the page, when others, not even me, had a problem with including Palestine as a state, not a territory, prior to their self declaring independence, etc. he has it seems a habit of seeming that it's his page and he has scared away many editors from that page who disagree with him, rav papa, fran9, best wishes and many others. and now because he reverted my edit, the article is again stuck the way he wanted it, even though there was no consensus and my edit had sources. Sir Joseph 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• As a general matter I find it distasteful when editors target a specific admin to solve their problems instead of taking the matter to ANI or another appropriate central location. But if this matter needs to escalate then it needs to escalate. AGF is not a suicide pact and there is no reason to AGF here. If you are wanting to handle this, I'm not sure that you are, would you like to have the discussion here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)

Commenting on a discussion you started about me is somehow stalking you?

Callanecc, I just came to mention that this has been moved over to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it to be sorted out there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

IP vandal

200.122.128.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) likely sock of 91.233.116.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per edits at Talk:Helena (empress). SPI open but IP is making repeated personal attacks against myself and other editors - could you block if available? samtar 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Already blocked by someone else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for closing off the SPI samtar 11:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Onefortyone

I have now responded to the false claims made by Excelse, whose attitude, especially his report for probation violations, reminds me of another user. See also the reliable sources I have cited on the related talk pages, for instance, and . Onefortyone (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page I have now cited dozens of reliable sources supporting the view that Elvis died on the toilet. However, user Excelse doesn't accept my sources. He claims:

"As usual, it remains that these are not reliable sources and they have only represented a medical examiner's observation, who didn't actually confirmed his theory, but rather considered it as a "possibility" or "plausibility", it doesn't means that we should be taking it as a fact that he died on toilet, when he didn't." See .

I also do not understand EdJohnson’s statement here. Doesn’t he check the many sources I have provided on the talk pages and does he really accept the false and unsupported claims made by Excelse? See also my reply here. So what should be done? Onefortyone (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In order to show good faith, I have now intensified the discussion on Talk:Graceland, now accepting the additional sources Excelse has provided. However, the sources seem to contradict each other. Perhaps you or another user can help to find the most appropriate wording for the questioned paragraph there. Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite protection

Due to the protection log, recent disruptive editing and popularity of the articles, i requested indefinite semi-protection of these articles. I am not aware of any rules, that if any administrator semi-protects a page for one year, another administrator can't override the decision. I feel they needs indefinite semi-protection. Rocky Mountains, Mummy, Pyramid. These are very popular chapters in school geography, history books. Other than Mummy and Pyramid is mentioned in movies, novels and TV shows.--Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy Kid, I find many of your indefinite requests excessive. There should be heavy and persistent vandalism. --NeilN 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I came here as Callanecc protected Daniel which had less protection log than above mentioned pages. Samasara protected Fossil fuel giving reason that it's highly visible page. All these pages were requested by me. When and which particular day there wil be regular vandalism, can't be predicted. I make an assumption whether any particular page will face repeated vandalism or not. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy Kid, every admin is going to use their own judgement when deciding protection types and protection lengths. No admin is going to unilaterally override the judgement of others. If that were to occur, I could easily say I don't like Callanecc's indefinite semi-protection and reduce it. --NeilN 17:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My actions at Metrojet Flight 9268

Hi Callanecc. I would be interested in your take on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. --John (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it got sorted out, in context I think your actions were appropriate (especially that you asked for feedback on AN). You could have tried a post on ANI to get some more admin eyes but that's into NOTBURO territory. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Red Russian Cocktail

I'm pretty sure parts of this Red Russian Cocktail entry is made up and derogatory to Russians. It states that in Soviet Russia the cocktail is often made with boiled cow blood. Does that sound remotely plausible to you? Why specify "Soviet Russia"? Is it to parallel the Yakov Smirnoff joke, 'In Soviet Russia, (noun) (verb) you!'? Hence my edit to draw attention to this absurdity. If you're going to delete my absurd contribution, you should delete this entire ludicrous entry. I am not Russian, but I find this highly offensive in stereotyping Russians or the perceived bleakness of life in a communist country. I have lived in communist, red China. I was born there. We are not all peasants who envy the lifestyle of the West. Some of us are proud of our culture and political ideals.

There is in fact a Chinese dish made with boiled pigs blood often served at dim sum, which you can find even in Chinese restaurants in the West, although rarely eaten by non-Chinese. My parents eat this all the time. So I know for a fact that when blood is boiled, it curdles into the consistency of something like semi-hard tofu. You cannot boil cow blood, or any blood for that matter, and drink it in a cocktail. I can't say with 100% certainty, but it seems to reason that part of this entry is apocryphal, added entirely with malicious intent to put down another culture. My comment was meant to draw attention to this absurdity. The fact that my satire was labelled "vandalism" but the real "vandalism" was left in place belies Western-centric assumptions made on your part. That's the real crime here.

2602:306:CC59:5690:C05:221B:FDBC:B21D (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've removed it and added some references. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Hi, no my edit wasn't a test or anything. I really really do not like seeing the word "homosexual" used in reference to gay people because of it's history as a term used to pathologize gay people and treat us as diseased and mentally disordered (plus the medical abuse that comes with it being treated as a disorder). It's a word that is hurtful to me and a lot of other gay people. Yes, it's just a small semantic change, but to a lot of gay people it means a lot There's really no reason to refer to a gay or lesbian person as "homosexual" when the words gay and lesbian exist and are preferred by most people. I probably put the source in the wrong place but the one I did list (http://www.glaad.org/reference/style) lists the editorial guidelines of the Associated Press and the New York Times for language pertaining to LGBT people. This source is actually used on Misplaced Pages's own article on "Terminology of Homosexuality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Terminology_of_homosexuality) which discusses how the term is considered derogatory so it should fit Misplaced Pages's standards.

At any rate it's just a simple semantic change but one that really does make a big difference so I would appreciate it if you retained it, especially given that it doesn't affect any of the content that you've worked on for the article :]

(And sorry if I've made any mistakes, I don't have any experience editing nor do I have much interest in doing a lot of it - I find the formatting too intimidating! One word is all I have enough confidence to touch without being scared I'll throw the whole article out of whack haha) Leesandeul (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leesandeul, welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for explaining your reasoning! :) I can't see a problem with you making those changes but can I suggest you might like to post a message at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies which will put you in contact with a group of editors who might be able to give you hand or give you some guidance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)