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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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.

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.[1] 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]

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]

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 if we were to compare it to Singapore, for example). I also find it ironic how the English edition of this article is protected, but not the Malay edition 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]

As I warned you above, this article is classified as an important article and it is also sensitive so it is very vulnerable to vandalism (history has proven). This article has recently continued to be heavily vandalized by not only a sockpuppet account of Phạm Văn Rạng (talk · contribs) but also a sockpuppet account of Sotavino (talk · contribs) (another banned account). I understand Wikipedia's policy is to prioritize ease and openness in editing, however ease and openness with this article only brings negativity and chaos to it rather than contribution. We need to be tough to defend this article. Currently the article is protected at 30/500 until 25 May 2026, however I think we should increase the protection to permanent like the article History of India. 2401:D800:DA1:59EE:2816:2286:31C0:E383 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we tend to be hesitant to idenfinitely protect articles at levels higher than semiprotection due to the number of people it effectively prevents from being able to edit it. History of India, for example, is only indefinitely semiprotected. This is especially the case when it's primarily due to sockpuppetry rather than being random but continuous vandalism. It's got a year of ECP on it so let's see what happens after that especially since it isn't technically possible to indefinitely semiprotect it now as that would remove the higher level of protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry, I was wrong about the protection level for the article History of India! In my opinion, when the protection term for the article History of Vietnam expires (although there is still nearly a year left), this article needs to be semi-protected indefinitely. Thanks for getting back to me! 2401:D800:7E06:A62:9C1E:D84:55D:8983 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-logentry-suppress, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-logentry-suppress and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-logentry-suppress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

न्न्नन 2400:1A00:7B21:98F4:FD12:5985:709B:76C6 (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]