User talk:Callanecc

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is Callanecc's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 28: 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.

Revert contentious edit

Hello @Callanecc, this editor made this contentious edit [1], which is, as you can see, extremely exaggerated, and multiple discussions in the talk page (Talk:Maratha Empire/Archive 2#Neutrality) decided on this neutrally worded passage as present in this version [2]. Please restore that version as the changes were made without consensus. PadFoot (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the consensus version. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on Masha and the Bear

Numberjacks is NOT related to Masha and the Bear, please delete. 82.77.77.96 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suggest you make an edit request on the talk page with your change. You need to include a reliable source that supports your change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Empire

I think administrative pp was not warranted. Can you please decrease it to semi protection? I had to work further in the article which I'm unable to do. Shakakarta (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shakakarta: There was an edit war between multiple editors so full protection was needed to stop the edit war and instead focus editors on communicating with each other to form a consensus. If your changes are related to the edit war you should discuss them on the article talk page before making them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic restriction query

Kind regards. I thought about expanding the Atalanta (1883) article from SMS Gazelle. The former was previously known as the Restaurador and was a Venezuelan gunboat seized during the 1902-1903 naval blockade of Venezuela, which in turn was a result of international tensions and disputes with Europe.

I wanted to ask if it was possible for me to edit in said article with my current topic restriction on Latin American politics, or if on the contrary if it could be considered a breach in order to avoid it. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a good approach to broadly construed restrictions is that if there is any doubt about whether something is covered, assume it is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakakarta

Is back to edit warring on Maratha Empire to impose his version. Last time, the article ended up getting protected due to his edit warring and now as well, he is still making reverts even after your warning.[3] This edit summary clearly speaks of the uncollaborative approach which this user has embraced until now. Previously, this user was edit warring to redirect articles such as Battle of Bhagalpur (1745).[4][5]

Also see his nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Mughal war (1686–1690). It was so bad that one editor wondered "if this is a bad-faith nomination or a competence issue".[6]

This user is certainly creating lots of problems. I believe a topic ban would do good. CharlesWain (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background information. I've gone with a block for now but I'll keep an eye on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

I was hoping to make some factual edits on the weapon systems used in the recent India-Pakistan conflict. Is it just not possible for people with my permission levels to edit anything around India/Pakistan/and Afghanistan ? Sukosuko1 (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sukosuko1, you can make those sorts of edits as long as you cite reliable sources. I've left a message on your talk page with some information about Contentious Topics. Sometimes articles are protected from editing due to a history of disruption, you won't be able to edit these articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vietnam

This article has a very long history of persistent vandalism by multiple accounts and IP addresses (sock puppets of Phạm Văn Rạng). It is currently temporarily semi-protected, but I would like to request permanent semi-protection as it is an important article. 2401:D800:2B2:353F:7358:BDF5:EF6B:8B56 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article has been semi-protected until October this year. We tend to lean towards temporary protections due to sockpuppetry since the premise of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit and sockpuppetry is an isolated (to one person) form of disruption rather than being a long term history of lots of different people causing problems. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that this important article will be vandalized as soon as the protection expires. At the very least I think we need to have edit moderation for accounts with less than 4 days and 10 edits as well as IP addresses, like in History of the United States article. 2402:800:BAA1:1E45:FEEA:EE89:E02D:62C8 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important article like the article about history of China, and there have been many vandalisms by many different people, Phạm Văn Rạng is just a recent prominent vandal. A proper protection is deserved. 2402:800:BAA1:1E45:FEEA:EE89:E02D:62C8 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but as I didn't add the protection I'll wait until the semi-protection has run out before doing anything further. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2401:D800:224:EB34:F1A8:4531:BCD7:6B9 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phạm Văn Rạng came back, my requests make sense. 2401:D800:262:188A:F854:4FB2:F87B:55E2 (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Léa

An IP address of Pham Van Rang is vandalizing this article, I hope you will revert this IP's edits and install proper protection for this article. 2401:D800:267:CD60:7031:32B8:6B70:501F (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phạm Văn Rạng's edits were reverted👍. 2401:D800:2C:9B08:7564:DE9E:821D:F3EE (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest was done by Sir Sputnik👍. The article has been semi-protected. 2402:800:5EDF:BEFF:25EC:BC71:E9F5:8C5C (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veilguard edit warring

Hello @Callanecc, I'm contacting you because you applied the most recent protection to the Veilguard article due to edit warring. The situation still hasn't improved, and there's one point where your input might help. An editor mentioned the WP:STABLE essay, which says that only an uninvolved administrator can decide to keep the stable version to help calm a dispute. Based on the history of the article, a clarification and action would be helpful to reduce the edit warring. Most of the reverts are just about this and probably won’t stop without some clarification.

Since you've protected the page twice, does that mean you're now considered involved, and that another admin would need to make that call? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are very concerned about having your preferred version in the short term, but this is a long running dispute so there isn't a clear stable version.[7] The solution is to work toward a consensus rather than asking an admin to pick your preferred version. BMWF (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply asking the last involved admin how to handle this situation. The dispute ended months ago, and the article remained stable until May 15. I am fine with whatever the admin answers or decides here; I just don't believe that this can be resolved at the editor level anymore. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the article talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured not everyone would be happy (it is a dispute, after all), but at least the focus is back on the talk page. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring on an article you previously protected

You recently gave a 24 full protection to Sabu (wrestler) due to edit warring over his birth and death dates. Since the article opened back up, the edit warring has only intensified. Now they’re also arguing about whether his real name was Terrence or Terry and at least one established editor has ignored a 3RR warning and continued to do so. I did file another protection request but it seems to have been ignored for the last day or so. Would you mind looking into the situation again? Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up @NJZombie. It looks like Ymblanter is dealing with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they’re not. They blocked one editor but refused to block the main offender. I have a report up on wp:AN/3 now. NJZombie (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei

Hi Callanecc, it's been 11 years since you placed the Brunei article under semi-protection. Do you think, after all this time, the current protection level is still necessary, or do you think you could either unprotect it or downgrade the protection to pending changes to see how it goes? Brunei doesn't fall under any Contentious topics, and it's a country not many talk about (at least compare it to Singapore, for example). I also find it ironic how the English version of this article is protected, but not the Malay version of this article (Malay being the country's official language). BriDash9000 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BriDash9000, re your Singapore example, I note that the Singapore article is indefinitely semiprotected but I'm happy to give it a go. I've downgraded the protection of Brunei to pending changes to see how it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]