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.

Hi Callanecc, it's been six months since the Brunei article protection was downgraded from semi to pending changes. The article's recent history shows that pending changes seems to be working well here; of the 64 edits since pending changes was applied, there have been constructive, accepted edits from IP users, but some of them have been reverted as either disruptive editing or vandalism. I'm checking the article's history every so often to see whether significant disruption returns, though there hasn't been a reverted edit since August. I do have to note that just because the language edition article of that country's official language isn't protected (such as the Malay edition of Brunei) doesn't mean that the English edition article is safe from disruption. You were the last one who upgraded the Slovakia article protection from pending changes to semi back in May. This was sensible as pending changes wasn't stopping IP users from changing its name to "Death to the war criminal state Russia!" multiple times. Meanwhile, the Slovak edition of that article isn't protected. As two other European country articles (Lithuania and Luxembourg) are also seeing the same sort of vandalism whenever they are not protected ([1], [[2]), I don't think it would be safe to remove or downgrade Slovakia's protection for the time being. When you mentioned that the Singapore article is indefinitely semi-protected in that discussion, I would understand that; unlike Brunei, a country which not many talk about, Singapore is one of the more popular countries out there, which is why I think it wouldn't be good to have its protection below semi. BriDash9000 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can i be allowed to edit this page as I have asked a protection for this page beacause of vandelism but I can't edit it anymore can you allow me to edit it Ismaiel Khan (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ismaiel, the page has been semi-protected which means that only editors who've had an account for more than 4 days and made at least 10 edits can edit the page. There is some more information about this at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. This is designed to ensure that editors who have some knowledge and experience with Wikipedia are contributing to it given the issues with editing. While you wait for that to happen you can make requests for edits on the article's talk page using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. When you try to edit the article this will appear with some instructions. I've left a welcome message on your talk page with some ideas on what you can do in the meantime. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Callanecc to help me in this I will become a autoconform usesr as you stated It helps me a lot Ismaiel Khan (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 03:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Callanecc, I hope all is well. This is regarding the latest action for this AE.

I believe the consensus was not to indef tban me from ACAS like the other party; I was to only receive some admin action for a couple uncivil comments I made; Newslinger suggested a warning/1-week ban, Sennecaster said if they're not topic banned here, at the next instance of incivility they're either getting a block or a topic ban

More re: Sennecaster's comment, I do not believe it was wholly applicable, being largely speculative based on one interaction - in which I've shown good faith by asking a relevant admin for advice and defending myself against a false accusation. Moreover, I have previously done well with content dispute discussions, even when I didn't get my way [3] [4]

Could you please re-check the AE to make sure? Many thanks. ~ Hogshine (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, I've made significant contributions to ACAS topics, like rewriting John of Tella, Chronicle of Zuqnin, Cave of Treasures, Barhebraeus, and many more. Would greatly appreciate it if you would reconsider. ~ Hogshine (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hogshine, I'd be willing to modify it to a ban from making comments about the conduct of other editors on article talk pages as it was one of the options raised in the AE discussions with the understanding that if you breach it it's likely to be replaced with a straight TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally fair and appropriate. I promise not to discuss user conduct in article talk pages - only appropriate venues like ANIs - from here on out. Failing to adhere to that, total TBAN and/or sitewide ban is to be applied. ~ Hogshine (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope all is well with you Callanecc,

I see that I was indefinitely topic banned from ACAS, however, the reason given seems not clear to me.

ScottishFinnishRadish said "Give 777network and Historynerd361 topic bans from WP:GS/ACAS" but no reason regarding me.

I read about off-wiki coordination worries, but it seems that was dropped after my reply addressing it, I also noticed "A week before that, 777network did make approximately 70 unconstructive date format changes" is this the basis of my ban? 777network (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @777network, the basis for the ban is the rough consensus of administrators in the thread who believe that there is a net benefit in not having you in the topic area at this stage. The basis for this is the off-wiki coordination/communication, the date format changes and the potential proxying for a topic banned editor. While we can litigate each of these reasons that isn't actually the precise reason for the ban as it is about admins believing it would be best to remove you from the topic area at this point. Having said that I see no reason why in 3-6 months of constructive editing in other topic areas that the topic ban wouldn't be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Callanecc, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ismaiel Khan (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Ismaiel Khan (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to prevent logged-in users from editing from 2001:ee0::/32? We are getting complaints over at UTRS. I haven't yet looked at the checkuser evidence, I figured I'd check in with you first. --Yamla (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've softened it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have a great day. --Yamla (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a Wiki notification about your Email, but never got in on my Email address. Could you please send me another one with same exact contents? Gigman (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing, even the spam folder is empty. I'm able to read your message up to "con...", you can continue it here if it's not too private, I don't mind. Gigman (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me an email through Special:EmailUser/Callanecc and I'll reply. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did (and I did get a copy of my mail) Gigman (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and now I finally got yours. Gigman (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

---

I would like some clarification, please, because you saying that is akin to calling my report frivolous.

1) Two weeks ago, an Administrator had said: Asking another editor whether English is their first language is an inappropriate personal attack. [5]. So how is asking an editor Do you speak English? not a personal attack?

2) WP:UNRESPONSIVE is Wikipedia policy. Then, isn't it against policy to write edit summaries that are personal opinions and comments that do not explain the edit? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that evidence of things that happened 6-12 months ago is not helpful in determining whether there is currently an problem with an editor. Other editors had presented evidence of a more recent things which is what was needed in that thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this note after I edited; I re-arranged the flow of the lead and removed a sentence that was installed on the 11th and did not have consensus. Do I need to self-revert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS, would it be wise to have a note on the article talk page for others who might miss an edit summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Past my bedtime, so not yet hearing from you, I reinstated the sentence I removed, leaving the flow re-arrangement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The provision started when I implemented it so your edit is the challenging something by reversion. However you can of course just leave it reverted if you wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it because a) tired, bedtime and b) if I'm confused, others will be as well. There are two confounding factors, which I need to understand. First, the question I raised on talk about why a third editor considered that the "consensus" version went unanswered. And then, when I added an UNDUE-inline tag, an editor removed the maintenance tag. I think I'll stick with my general feeling about that article of ... not worth the hassle ... and go to bed. Thanks for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hope to see you on the talk page tomorrow. I'm sure people with experience will be good for the discussion. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words ... but too much going on in my life, and I need to focus what editing time I have on articles that aren't stressful ! G'night, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if SandyGeorgia is going to discuss other editors' edits (in this case mine, Candidyeoman55 and at least one other editor), that she have the courtesy to notify us of that discussion. I did respond to her before she made the comment above. I have since responded a second time, now that I understand she was talking ONLY about the one sentence rather than the sourced material in the infobox and how that sentence matches the material in the infobox. I'd rather we discuss these concerns at the talk page rather than here. Can we agree on that?--David Tornheim (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like a better place for you to comment than here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I put the diff there. And for the record, I think the consensus requirement was a good idea. I'll put that on the talk page as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]