Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Callanecc. It has been a little over a year since I was given sanctions and I wanted to appeal directly to you, as you said I could do. In the time since, I sought consensus and reverted changes only when necessary (1RR). And I will continue to avoid edit warring in the future. As for the interaction ban, I have not interacted with Aredoros87 from the time it was given, and because the user has been inactive for almost a year I believe this is no longer needed. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for granting me the NPR permission. I was curious if there is a way for me to track which pages I have patrolled after I start using the new permission? I haven't yet, but I'd like to bookmark that page if so. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Callanecc, this editor made this contentious edit [3], 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 [4]. Please restore that version as the changes were made without consensus. PadFoot (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Numberjacks is NOT related to Masha and the Bear, please delete. 82.77.77.96 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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.[5] 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).[6][7]
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".[8]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]