ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussions to User talk:Callanecc/Archive 12. (BOT) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
I've known about the [[WP:Casting aspersions]] shortcut for some time, but I had forgotten that instead of going to a section of [[WP:AGF]] or related policy/guideline, it actually goes to a paragraph in the principles section of an individual ARB ruling. I am writing you about it because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions&oldid=593080254 you created the redir]. <p> |
I've known about the [[WP:Casting aspersions]] shortcut for some time, but I had forgotten that instead of going to a section of [[WP:AGF]] or related policy/guideline, it actually goes to a paragraph in the principles section of an individual ARB ruling. I am writing you about it because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions&oldid=593080254 you created the redir]. <p> |
||
Is there a reason it points to a specific case ruling? Is there somewhere in policy or guidelines that would be less of an [[WP:EGG]], assuming you perceive it as an EGG at all? If you agree it could be better pointed elsehwere but have no opinions as to a better place, I'm willing to work on figuring that out. Thanks for your thoughts. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
Is there a reason it points to a specific case ruling? Is there somewhere in policy or guidelines that would be less of an [[WP:EGG]], assuming you perceive it as an EGG at all? If you agree it could be better pointed elsehwere but have no opinions as to a better place, I'm willing to work on figuring that out. Thanks for your thoughts. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
== [[List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season]] article == |
|||
The IP-hopper has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season&diff=618477152&oldid=618468016 predictably] shown up with a registered account, as {{User|CoUser1}}; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season&diff=618543603&oldid=618543392 here]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 13:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:48, 26 July 2014
Clear violation?
I am not rushing to comment on ACE but saw this. Looks to me as if a user wanted to add an infobox, but didn't know how to that properly. Andy helped, no? Clear violation? Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I saw that, however my interpretation of the restriction is that they are no permitted to add an info box regardless of what was there before. That is if the user had inserted an infobox the restriction wouldn't apply but adding the infobox means that the restriction has been breached. My commenting rather than just blocking was so that this could be discussed, and I'll clarify that in my comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- The user added the infobox, he just failed to format it well. It looks like he saw other articles but didn't know that a template needs to be invoked. Andy did that for him. - If that is "adding an infobox", I am afraid that formality rules in a way that is not helpful. I like to bring good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree to some extent though I think my initial one week block was a bit harsh. My opinion is still that Andy added an infobox but we'll see how other admins define the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are again at the point where we take expressions more or less literally. "Create an article", I was taught, means turn a red link blue, not add more than 80% of content, see Polish Requiem. Who created that article if not I? - Who adds an infobox, the one who adds the content or the one who formats it, helping (!) the other and Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are indeed, which is why I've asked for more opinions. That's a question for us to answer to AE. Then we get into the language of creating and expanding. And also the example of changing a redirect into an article, as it was already a blue link when later turned into an article. Anyway questions for AE if not ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am beyond my voluntary restriction to two comments in a discussion ;) - You didn't succeed in convincing me that helping another user and Wikipedia should be sanctioned. How about a bit more AGF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are indeed, which is why I've asked for more opinions. That's a question for us to answer to AE. Then we get into the language of creating and expanding. And also the example of changing a redirect into an article, as it was already a blue link when later turned into an article. Anyway questions for AE if not ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are again at the point where we take expressions more or less literally. "Create an article", I was taught, means turn a red link blue, not add more than 80% of content, see Polish Requiem. Who created that article if not I? - Who adds an infobox, the one who adds the content or the one who formats it, helping (!) the other and Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree to some extent though I think my initial one week block was a bit harsh. My opinion is still that Andy added an infobox but we'll see how other admins define the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- The user added the infobox, he just failed to format it well. It looks like he saw other articles but didn't know that a template needs to be invoked. Andy did that for him. - If that is "adding an infobox", I am afraid that formality rules in a way that is not helpful. I like to bring good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey
Just wanted to say thanks for the early unblock, the article is now a Good article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations and well done! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what are the chances of another exemption to the TBAN? I would like to try and work on few userspace drafts. I will obviously not be moving them to mainspace until such a time as you figure the TBAN can be lifted. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you wait another 2 or 3 weeks I'd very likely lift it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, it will take that long at least to get this to GA status, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you wait another 2 or 3 weeks I'd very likely lift it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
enrolment of town
As u know that karnal sher kaly is the big town and the oldest town commiti of swabi distric kpk but it still not the part of Google earth and weather forecast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.253.213 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi 39.33.253.213, Wikipedia has no control and isn't related to Google Earth or weather forecasts so I can't help you. If you're referring to a Wikipedia page can you please give me the web address or the exact title of the page so I can look into it further. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Any way to get priority on an SPI?
Can you look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi, or let me know if there is any way to raise the priority of this report? The sock farm involved have been disruptively !voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzad Ali Najmi, and I'd like to be able to weed out the invalid comments for greater clarity in the discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- @WikiDan61: If you add at least one diff or point to a blatant pattern of editing for each account and request checkuser (change
{{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|CURequest}}
, that's probably going to be the fastest way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)- Thanks! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for responding, and for your related actions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, please help me
Callanecc and Lord Roem, I have been sick for a few days, and the old dog I inherited from my son and DIL (after their last baby was born) has been, too, and this is what I see going on upon my return:
The whole discussion: Gone silent?!?
Is this acceptable behavior? That first one of SR's really bothers me. I am no paid advocate for anyone, nor a volunteer advocate for anyone for that matter. Do I edit in an area that is important to me? Yes! Like the majority of WP editors, I imagine. Don't you?
I am so tired of being talked about like this... but I really don't want to be driven off. I just want other editors like these two to quit speculating about me and trying to brand me. Is there no way to get editors to quit talking about others like this without evidence?
I thought about using some formal process to report this, but I am so tired. And feeling a bit queasy in my stomach like I did last fall when I first reached out to SR for help.
Please, please help.
--Lightbreather (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A ruling is needed
Please will you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Septate: alternative proposal. You may recognise the proposed sanction; it is similar to one used successfully elsewhere. The proposal is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SProposal for a topic ban on Septate. Septate asked for clarification, and I gave it at User talk:Septate#July 2014 ANI.
As all parties seem to be agreed, it only needs an admin to approve it (or not).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
re User:Aalaan sockpuppetry
You might want to take a look at Qesadila (talk · contribs). -C759 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Question on redir you created
Hi Callenecc,
I've known about the WP:Casting aspersions shortcut for some time, but I had forgotten that instead of going to a section of WP:AGF or related policy/guideline, it actually goes to a paragraph in the principles section of an individual ARB ruling. I am writing you about it because you created the redir.
Is there a reason it points to a specific case ruling? Is there somewhere in policy or guidelines that would be less of an WP:EGG, assuming you perceive it as an EGG at all? If you agree it could be better pointed elsehwere but have no opinions as to a better place, I'm willing to work on figuring that out. Thanks for your thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The IP-hopper has predictably shown up with a registered account, as CoUser1 (talk · contribs); see here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)