Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manul (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 13 February 2014 (→Regarding a previous SPI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Semi-protection request

Could you please semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) page again for at least two months? User:Yunshui had previously protected it back on January for one month. 183.171.177.207 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until it expires and see if it's actually needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Get ready at 10:09 (Misplaced Pages time).183.171.177.165 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jesse Peyronel

Created by sock puppet of Fairy Spit. Could you look at it per WP:G5? Thank you much :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G5 is speedy deletion criteria meaning that it doesn't need to go through AFD. But I'd like to see at least the beginnings of a discussion as to whether we should keep it or not given the sourcing. Happy to be convinced to speedy delete it though (or feel free to tag it with {{db-g5}} and get a second opinion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus...

Sorry to keep bothering you with this. Please could you take a look at the latest reversion-without-explanation at the page? I don't want to revert the revert as I suspect it will only make things worse. But Brewcrewer's actions, despite his glib response to your question above, have so far shown no sign of collaborative or constructive behaviour to justify his revert warring. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the full protection might sort that out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back

I have replied to you comments on the following SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zimmermanh1997. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bold redirects

I have actually been discussing it. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#International children's networks for the discussion. Finealt (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's good that you started a discussion, but the one user who responded said that they agreed in principle but had another question before you did it. It's also generally a good idea to be active on Misplaced Pages for at least a while after you make very bold edits in case someone wants to discuss them with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Katrina Villegas

Understood on the de facto ban revert. Well, I assume that he/she's already banned as per Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol#Andrea Villegas, although I do get your drift. It's just that I do have a hunch that this problem user would continue on his trolling habit for weeks or even years. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Community discussion on banning users has to take place at WP:AN (or WP:ANI). Having handled number of the SPIs I agree, but a ban discussion needs to take place at AN, though the only difference it makes in cases like this is if the user cares that they've been banned and stops. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, true. I've been thinking about letting it pass for a few months to see if the user's behaviour improves at least somewhat, but from what it seems he/she isn't giving a damn or two about what we say about his/her hoaxing activity, so would it hurt if I start a consensus? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Finealt

I'm not sure you are watching the page, so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to comment.

• User talk:Finealt#Redirecting instead of merging

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.223.169 (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

possible sock of user you blocked.

Hi, Callanecc.

Could you take a look at the contributions of User:86.52.12.101 who geolocates to the same place as User:78.156.109.166 whom you've just blocked for six months, and who have both Ip 86 IP 78 by mere coincidence, pinged User:Great Time on his talk page? Great Time himself is a problem as well, if you look at his talk page and the ref desk discussions and his "contributions" there.

Thanks μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PS, funny the Pakistani IP above's single edit has been to ping you with a "hi" as well. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may want to see User:Pubserv. Aside from a strikingly similar interest in earthquakes, angels, Zyprexa and winking, he flat out said he's the same person. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like it couldn't be clearer, it could. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 86... for a week for block evasion and Pubserv for disruptively editing while logged out. I'm not convinced that Great Time is a sock (could quite possibly be a friend) but well see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. Just a question, though. Given 86 is a sock of an account that's been blocked for 6 months, and had his talk page privileges revoked, shouldn't he be blocked longer than a week? Thanks for the help. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because different people can be assigned an IP address to use shorter blocks are generally used. For example vandal only registered accounts are blocked indefinitely however vandal only IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely because they may eventually be reassigned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, but you may also want to look at this edit, which was made by User:Pubserv but given a signature forged to IP 78: Earthquake anniversary.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC). I think an SPI is warranted. let me know if you need a formal complaint elsewhere to act if you can't do so based on this evidence of forgery. Again, thanks. I wouldn't have the patience or stomach for this if I were you. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already gave him the full monty instead of just a week. My bad, truly sorry. Again, my thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all that's what a user talk page is for. You might find this script useful - each time a blocked user's userpage or talk page is linked it puts a line through it if they are blocked and if you hover over it gives details. You can still file an SPI (and include Great Time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I installed the script. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail Call

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Are you ready to semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.64 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No need just yet as pages aren't protected pre-emptively, the protection has just ended so let's see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

One reason why I put it as a speedy instead of a prod was

Someone made the page a few days earlier and I put it as a prod yet it got deleted as a speedy (odd I know) Wgolf (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what's happening with that, unless it was written differently and looked like it was covered by the A7 criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

Greetings. For what it's worth, my interactions with 108.28.104.22 began when he/she engaged me in a dispute at "Fort Lee Lane Closure Scandal". He/she then followed me to Nikki Haley and Justin Amash and reverted recent edits of mine there as well. I've noticed that other recent edits by him/her (, , ) have not been particularly constructive. At this point, I'm not sure whether he/she is editing in good faith, or with the intention of being disruptive.CFredkin (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had a look through their contribs. If they come back and do the same thing tomorrow then I might get a little more involved, but hopefully they continue (or start) to discuss. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Milky Way

There have been reverts; extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

PC is indefinite and I've semi-protected it for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

More PC-protected pages?

What about Kane (wrestler)? --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And O. J. Simpson murder case? --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither has had any edits for at least a couple of days so we'll see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

Thanks for looking into this issue.

I just wanted to specify that Bull-Doser is de facto banned, but not formally banned. There's been a controversy at the time of his block in 2012 because the blocking administrator had taken upon himself to de jure ban Bull-Doser without consulting the community. This had led some subsequent administrators over the months to think that BD has been formally banned. But in reality, he is only de facto banned.

Now if Bull-Doser continues to evade his block instead of following the WP:BASC procedure, he may eventually get formally banned as well. But until then, I would just put the {{blocked user}} tag instead of the {{banned user}} tag (unless the latter tag can also be used for defacto banned users).

Regards. Farine (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, and I've fixed the link as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the reason I used the banned user template is because of the block reason linked which linked to a decision to ban, but it looks like that was later changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Page protection

Thank you for correcting my entry about page protection. I've resubmitted the request for Dynamics NAV Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection --JSebastian83 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A sock puppet?

Hi there, apparently I was flagged as a sock puppet. Please can you investigate and look me up anywhere including tens of mentions of me attending conferences and being a real person? I'm not sure why someone tried to edit my account page, and I did notice my coworkers indeed using the same IP. That's Elizabeth Grey and Josh. As to my account page I did copy some of the template from another user and I'm happy to update, I thought I was following a standard. Happy to arrange a call or Skype or to write a letter to prove I am indeed a real person... Thank you for your consideration, Krystian — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrystianSzastok (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes

Could you please semi-protect this page for 6 months, or rangeblock the IP? He's back again, and I don't think he's going to go away anytime soon, especially after analyzing his history of editing. He tends to return over periods of up to a month of inactivity. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Semi-protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

notification

Please see the evidence at hand. It is not the first time that QuackGuru has been banned from the Chiropractic page. In fact he has been banned multiple times and for lengths as long as 1 year. DJFryzy (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and if you wish to file an enforcement request regarding that please see the instructions at the top of this page. The reason for the warning was you labeling of QuackGuru's edit(s) as vandalism when it wasn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

About bioresonance page protection

The current page about bioresonance is not neutral and and giving the readers a negative impression. I tried to add Medical Research from Medical Journals which are according to page not exists, but very resistantly the page editors are tying to maintain the only negative ideas. I suggest to suspend this page (cause it is giving wrong information to people) until our discussions are solved.

My last comment on discussion page is,

As a Specialist Family Medicine Doctor with about 20 years of experience, I am still having difficulties why you are resistant to publish the positive medical research which is on PUBMed? It is our (Medically Educated people`s) most respected database, not every publication is listed there, it has it`s rules). But giving a wrong impression to the people Bioresonance is pseudoscience (very big word, how you will prove it? And as normally you are unable to prove it why this text does not still have any positive finding about Bioresonance, but even some TV gossips?), it has no scientific research ?(but there is scientific research and why not to also put the results of these? Are you medical biophysics authors to judge these studies and to decide to put only the negative results... why?)

Even about tobacco cessation there are very good studies with positive results. Will you let me to inform people about these scientific studies or will you only talk about BBC show gossips (very encyclopedic isn`t it)?

Every method can be used with bad intentions on the hands of dishonest people, (is it normal to emphasize that much in an encyclopedia instead of being neutral), like mammographies, antidepressants (antidepressants has an effect similar to placebo levels by the way), cholesterol lowering drugs (our centuries most shameful medical error)), but the main idea of current text is not neutral giving out an very negative impression instead of being neutral and letting readers of[REDACTED] to see both sides of the issue and decide themselves, why?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Enigma9035: Misplaced Pages works by consensus, you need to get other editors to agree with you not edit war over it. The big box on Talk:Bioresonance therapy will give you some pointers on what the policies relating to topics such as these you would be well advised to read and understand those before continuing. I would also suggest that you propose the edits you wish to make section by section rather than all at once as it will be easier for other editors to contribute to the consensus building. Please note that the Arbitration Committee has authorised administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on editors who fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process, these sanctions can include blocks from editing or bans from certain topic areas. This notice has been recorded at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for suggestions. I will continue on the discussion page and see the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You have semi-protected a page including contentions content about living persons.

The thing to do is remove the content until the matter is resolved. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC) That page is Tor (anonymity network). The material is about a rumor that two individuals are covertly working with the NSA. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

The page has no been protected , why?--Windows66 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Admins are human; we forget too. I've gone ahead and implemented the protection Callanecc decided upon. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just the bot said that it wasn't going to happen. Thanks very much user.--Windows66 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fully protected not semi-protected but either way that is fine, thanks again. Y--Windows66 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus closes on AfDs without participation

Hi Callanecc, I wanted to ask about your no consensus closes for Integral Tradition Publishing and Lima Publishing. As all of these discussions ran for two weeks without any editors arguing that they be kept, leaving only the nominator's arguments that they be deleted, I wonder if no consensus is really the right outcome for them; a soft delete (i.e., treating as an uncontested PROD) may have been better. KoodibooK, in a similar situation, had previously been a contested PROD, so it's probably fair to call that one no consensus. But since Integral Tradition and Lima hadn't been subjected to any sort of deletion process before, deletion may have been a better outcome. Did you come to your decision due to the lack of participation in the debate or because you found the nominator's arguments insufficient? --BDD (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I closed them as no consensus was due to the lack of participation. There was a discussion towards the end of last year about soft deleting and there was a weak consensus in favour of soft deleting unopposed AFDs. There needed to be further discussion before a change to the admins' instructions which there hasn't been yet. Though in hindsight soft deleting them wouldn't have been a problem really. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this edit, doing what I should have done but forgot to. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I saw that you had to go and figured it had dropped off the to do list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal II episodes

Can you please semi-protect this article for at least 1-2 months? There has been a history of disruptive editing by multiple IPs in the article for the past several months now. Most of them have ignored my warnings multiple times over, and the most recent IP (118.218.16.201) completely ignored my request for him to stop adding his made-up info/incoherent sentences. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Having had a look at some of the edits, I don't think protection is warranted in this case. It looks like at least some of the IP edits try good faith contributions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Asaaaasa

Could you re-open this one please, there are some new socks. Not sure how to re-open it myself, so I've probably broken it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've opened up a new one because that's going to be easier then re-opening and re-requesting CheckUser on the last SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously that's the better way to do it. Not enough coffee yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Muffadal Saifuddin is locked with wrong information

• the article should be fully protected in its stable NPOV form : as I dont see the issue resolving in near future , hence for NPOV both should be written as claimants only citing various issues over the succession. Moreover the matter has gone into courts as in the alleged succession video ,no one was named by Burhanuddin as he was completely disabled and could not speak, move and was made like a Idol to preside over the ceremony.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by203.192.208.58 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version. When fully protecting pages, to be neutral, administrators must protect the page in its current version so as not to favour a particular side. Please gain a consensus on the talk page for any changes you'd like to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this much needed step, talk page discussion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

talkback

Regarding a previous SPI

Hi Callanecc,

A user has been going around promoting Tumbleman's post-block claims. The story is that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence.

This silly drama could be ignored were it not for the user continuing Tumbleman's arguments on the Sheldrake talk page, arguments which failed to gain any consensus (and, in my opinion, don't even make sense), and correspondingly making edits similar to those that Tumbleman made.

The user also relays Tumbleman's aspersions (echoed in his post-block socks) which somehow make it my fault that admins concluded that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE ("a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll"). I don't think aspersions-by-proxy (of a blocked user, no less) is any more appropriate than direct aspersions.

Since you handled the aforementioned SPI, would you please explain to this user that the no-IP-socking claim cannot possibly be true? The user had been promoting similar ideas in the (in my opinion frivolous and evidence-free) arbcom case on Sheldrake he initiated, which was quickly dismissed. I believe I'm the exact wrong person to talk to him about this. vzaak 14:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some point tomorrow or the day after. I've had a quick look at their comments and it appeals they've missed the point a little (for example there is an overlap of edits and it doesn't matter because there is checkuser proven block evasion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all complicated by the peculiar story Tumbleman told about sharing his password with a paid-professional Misplaced Pages editor, which, even if we believe that and ignore its implications, wouldn't explain other checkuser results, including but not limited to this check which is not in the SPI. The continued post-block drama, still with us in the form of tall tales told through proxies, just confirms the assessment the admins made about Tumbleman, in my view. vzaak 16:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)