User talk:Callitropsis

Banyan Tree Holdings

Hello @SamX,

I represent Banyan Tree Group publicity team and I wanted to update the page which has some areas that needs info and factual correction.

The main content has been about the Banyan Tree and Angsana, the two original brands. However last year, the company has announced brand extensions, which now operates 10 brands. So I was trying to associate the relevant websites, given Banyan Tree and Angsana website was already in the list, I was simply adding the link to the other brands. i also need to edit the total properties, which is now 64, but on Wiki it is 55 which is outdated.

Please let me know if I can clarify further.

Thank you BanyanTreeGroup (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@BanyanTreeGroup: Thanks for reaching out! Wikipedia is not a directory or link farm, so I reverted your additions of the links in question. Editing articles that you have a strong conflict of interest with is also generally not allowed. If there's changes you want to be made to the article in question, you should make an edit request on the article's talk page instead. Our conflict of interest guide summarizes the relevant policies nicely.

Your username also implies shared use, which isn't allowed for several reasons. If you plan on continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, I recommend that you request a username change.

Thanks! --SamX 07:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wise mystical tree" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wise mystical tree and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9 § Wise mystical tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

My talk page

How can we get my talk page protected ASAP as well as get that dolt of an IP blocked? He has been reported, and I have already requested page protection... ugh. I hope an admin gets to it soon. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: I'm not sure if there's really much that can be done. Adding a note to the AIV report would probably get your talk page protected more quickly, at the very least. — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Did that too.... O.O — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose all that's left to do is hunker down for the next few minutes and spam that rollback button :/ — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Royal enfield

I had a 22’ re Himalayan. Had turn signal assemblies (5) that fell apart completely in their housing and a clutch that shut the bike off at random intervals, all within 1200 miles. I know what i am talking about, called re 10 times and went to the dealership many times to get it fixed. Is this a impartial forum or for fanboys of the company with biased opinions? 2601:1C0:C802:1B40:A5AE:A7:588:2226 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for reaching out! Unfortunately, your experience constitutes original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must cite reliable sources, especially regarding potentially controversial statements that are likely to be challenged. If you can find one that supports your assertion, feel free to add it to the article. Alternatively, I'd be happy to add it myself if you can send me a link or something. Thanks! — SamX [talk • contribs] 19:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for a compassionate, well-reasoned comment on what is shaping up to be one of the most difficult, emotional ArbCom cases the community has ever had. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! :) I debated whether or not to even post anything because a) I really don't have any stake in this, b) I generally try not to comment on behind-the-scenes drama, and c) I haven't even had time to read the linked article. (GIS is a lot of work!) I decided to post because it seemed like not many people were discussing the real-world implications of this case beyond injuries to Wikipedia's reputation as an impartial source, in addition to the actions of a certain banned user. This is understandable, since Wikipedians form an insular, mostly anonymous community with arcane customs and idiosyncracies that's little-known to the general public. This makes it very easy to forget that Wikipedia is in the real world, and that what we do here has very real consequences, whether we're aware of them or not. I try to remind myself of this whenever I edit. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice work reporting all the "Bbb23 exposed" vandals–as I sit and watch as the AIV backlog grows and grows–even if it's past midnight! Tails Wx 05:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It's the easiest, most boring thing I've done all week. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reporting 37 IPs...I do agree! Tails Wx 05:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen this many entries at AIV. I suppose I could've just reported the ranges, but oh well... — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. 40 reports...something should be done at this point. Are admins at 12:15AM EST awake when this is English Wikipedia? I do see a few but I'm not sure if they're checking the noticeboards! Tails Wx 05:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to have stopped for the time being, so I suppose it isn't really as urgent anymore. At this point I'm mostly concerned about their potential status as open proxies, and annoyed that I could've been doing homework instead of dealing with this nonsense. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned about their timing, since they can come back anytime, or maybe they're just taking a short break and they'll come back when they think we're offline, or they think we are...It's getting late, I might as well head to bed very soon, so they'll catch me off-guard first!...but they'll probably not recognize me as I haven't reported any of the vandals. And yes, homework is better than dealing with lots of IP vandals! Tails Wx 05:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, Materialscientist has dealt with the IP vandals! Tails Wx 13:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on Conjecture

Hello, SamX, and congratulations on your recent promotion. You seem to be a person that chooses your words carefully enough, a good trait. Seeing as you reverted a change that I made, I'd like to pick your brain in good faith, if you'd care to respond.

In recent years on Wikipedia, I have seen an increasing number of articles changed, charged with contemporary cultural and political rhetoric, which worries me very much. Rather than sticking to relevant and utilitarian information, some will inject upsetting conjecture into otherwise well written works.

Written in the Wikipedia encyclopedic style, these edits have the veneer of impartiality without the sauce. Think about a dog, editing the "cats" page to add a section about their viruses (all of which are contagious to humans!), under the heading "Health". Unfortunately (and luckily) these edits seem to only hit articles of contemporary issue.

I would like very much for Wikipedia to continue to be a useful and entertaining tool, but the more I see these sections, the more I head to other websites.

You have been here a long while, and have been imbued with new power. What do you think about what I have said? Eyemotions (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eyemotions: Thanks for reaching out, and welcome to Wikipedia! I unfortunately don't have time to compose a thoughtful, well-worded response to your question, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can. In the meantime, feel free to check out Help:Introduction, if you feel so inclined. Wikipedia can be confusing to newcomers and difficult to navigate at times, and the link I've provided is a decent overview of some of the core principles that Wikipedia follows, and has some useful information about how editing works. The Teahouse is also a great place to ask questions, and a good resource for new editors. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eyemotions: Before I get into the heart of this reply, I'd like to clarify that getting the reviewer permission wasn't really a promotion. Being a pending changes reviewer isn't an endorsement of my aptitude as an editor, and it's not a badge of honor or anything like that. It simply means I've read and understand some of Wikipedia's core policies, and I'm willing and able to review edits by new users to pages with pending changes protection, such as the one you made. It's really more of a tool than a job title.

Judging by your message, your perceptions of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia's scope and purpose are, broadly speaking, correct. Verifiability and no original research are core content policies here and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which many inexperienced editors don't realize. Content must be written from a neutral point of view and supported by reliable sources. With that being said, Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of what has been published in reliable sources. It also isn't a paper encyclopedia, and therefore isn't limited by constraints limited by the print format. Articles can and should give due weight to any and all widely accepted facts or opinions about any given topic that are documented by reliable sources, with some exceptions.

For example, Wikipedia's article on JK Rowling, which has been identified as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, details the controversies that have arisen from her remarks about transgender people. It isn't bare-bones biographical information, but it's been extensively covered by reliable sources, so Wikipedia can and should include information about said controversies. However, she's more well-known for her work as an author, which is accordingly given more attention in the article about her. Inserting a long paragraph about her views on the LGBT community right at the start of the article would constitute undue weight, and would violate Wikipedia policy.

Similarly, the under-representation of women and minorities in congress is a well-documented historical phenomenon that is supported by reliable sources. Of course, that doesn't mean that content is set in stone. The paragraph that you removed, while encyclopedic, could be supported by more inline citations to reliable sources. You could also start a discussion on the article's talk page if you think the section should be altered, trimmed, or moved to another part of the article. Since it's a pretty high-profile article, any comments posted to the talk page would would likely get attention from other editors.

I hope that was helpful. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have, although I'm pretty busy with college courses right now and probably wouldn't be able to get back to you very quickly. You'd probably get a quicker response at the Teahouse, which is a venue specifically dedicated to answering questions from new editors. Again, thanks for reaching out! — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for YOU!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hey there SamX! I've seen your hard work in the community with reverting anti-vandalism, and I'd like to give you a barnstar for that. Keep it up! / Best regards, RemoveRedSky / (u) (t) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello SamX,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Samx

correct mw CAHDI Party1 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@CAHDI Party1: I'm not sure what you're asking me. Could you please be more specific?

Also, it seems like you have a conflict of interest. Generally, you should avoid editing in topic areas where you have a conflict of interest, except to request edits on the article's talk page. Further, your username is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've replied at the user's talk page since they seem to be having trouble finding mine. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Koko Taylor

I removed the below message in quotes from the wiki page because she was my grandmother and this has nothing to do with her legacy and all her accomplishments. "In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service said that Taylor owed $400,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest, for the years 1998, 2000 and 2001. In those years combined, her adjusted gross income was $949,000."

Please remove 2600:8800:8F0A:900:9173:675C:626D:E2CA (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed it for now, as it likely constitutes undue weight. Do keep in mind that editing in areas that you have a conflict of interest is frowned upon, though. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article, but I have found one and added it for you. Please try and remember to include sources yourself with future edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 06:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm not sure what you mean; could you please be more specific? I didn't actually add the loan to DC United to the article; that was done by an IP. All I did was fix the link to DC United so that it linked to the proper article and add a period to the end of the sentence. I only edited the page because I encountered the edit during RC patrol, as football (not to mention sports in general) isn't an area of interest for me. I'm well aware of WP:RS, WP:BLP, and related policies, so I did a quick Google search to confirm that O'Brien was sent on loan, saw that the loan was mentioned with RS later in the article, and figured the edit was legit. I see now that the sources listed at the time only discussed a reported signing, so I suppose I could've been more thorough in checking the sources especially considering it's a BLP. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But the loan was NOT sourced when you edited. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Fair enough. From my reading of WP:BLP, the unsourced information didn't seem like it was challenged or likely to be challenged since it doesn't involve any claims of wrongdoing (or something else that would likely be seen as controversial) and it's been well-documented by news outlets. Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. Since I came across the edit during RC patrol, I'm also curious as to whether I should immediately revert any unsourced addition to a BLP, controversial or not, which is something I do most of the time. In this case, I figured it was fine since I was able to verify the addition with a quick Google search, so I decided to close the tab after making a few quick copyedits and return to Special:RecentChanges to keep a lookout for more urgent problems. I promise I'm not trying to wikilawyer or be vexatious here; I really would appreciate feedback. — SamX [talk · contribs] 13:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realize that my actions violated the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. From now on, I will revert any unsourced change to BLPs I see while on RC patrol, just to be safe. Thanks for the heads-up. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

@SamX, please notify the creator of the Peter Hehir article, which is 69.230.132.62, about the recent PROD of that article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: You're correct that it's generally best practice to notify the creator when PRODing, but this case is unusual because the article was created by an IP in 2005. (IPs haven't been able to create articles since December that year.) The IP currently geolocates to Detroit, and whoever used that IP in 2005 seems to have mostly edited in the topic area of Australian film and television. Given this, and the way ISPs work, it's very unlikely that whoever is using that IP address is the same person who used it 17 years ago, so there's really no point in posting a notice on the IP's talk page. See Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@SamX, you did a good job explaining why it’s unusual. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: No problem :) You also don't need to ping people when you leave messages on their user talk page, since they'll receive a notification whenever someone edits their talk page. See Help:Notifications for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Help me

hey! I need some help from you. One user again reverting my edits without any specific reason and saying "Block evading sock" Bruhh is here (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

if you don't want help, please suggest who can help me @SamX Bruhh is here (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)