User talk:Callanecc/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

My warning is for the wrong thing, would like to clarify

Hello, I received a warning on my talk page for edit warring over Syrian Chemical weapons. I'm afraid that is not what the "edit war" was about. It was related to page MintPress News where the one user Sayerslle on the page was only citing negative blogs that were not reliable sources, wrote the entire page for the MintPress website based on one of their articles they published a year ago about chemical weapons and inserted his opinions (you can see the talk page and revision history) and I was advocating to make the page more neutral by proving both negative, positive and neutral coverage. I'm happy to say that was achieved after a month of "edit warring" and an editor intervened and agreed with me. But, I am not familiar with the Syrian chemical weapons affair nor do I care much for it, I was simply trying to cite reliable sources. Thanks, just wanted to clarify what the issue was. isabellabean (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabellabean (talk • contribs)

Still edit warring

As I predicted, User: BioDude73 is still continuing to edit war adding the hoax content to Alonzo Holt, now logging out to use the same IP address they were using before. Can you just perform the block, rather then me go through WP:ANEW? The user also claims to be the subject as seen here. Either way, the content still being thrusted into the article is factually incorrect in a way to advertise or promote the subject. STATic message me! 22:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Both the account and IP are blocked for 31 hours. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And they have returned to adding the BLP violations/hoax content via the same IP address. Longer block then? STATic message me! 06:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

74.73.22.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked for a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, seconds after the block they jumped on the BioDude73 account. So looks like that one needs the same treatment.STATic message me! 07:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had enough of this, I've blocked indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Huw Jenkins

Why should be me the one to discuss an undiscussed move? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't have an issue reverting an undiscussed move, however in this case it involved more than one move and a disambig page being created. So I'd rather there be a discussion first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Block my Bot account

Hello, you have blocked my bot account, and I really dont't know exactly why, this account is for my bot, I didn't make any edits in my bot account, but if someday i want to run the bot in english wikipedia, what i'm going to do?.--ASammour (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I blocked it in accordance with the username policy which does not allow usernames which could be 'easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot"'. If you'd like to run the bot in the future you will need to seek permission from the bot approvals group. Please see the English Wikipedia's bot policy for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

referencing, replying back to a message you sent me

Hi there, you sent me a message about not referencing or stating sources to an article that I changed. It was a biography of a living person. I have the sources, but I dont know how to link it to the article. Can you please let me know how i Should do that

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somiya321 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Somiya321, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources will show you how to do it. If you've got any questions please see free to ask. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Apply for a user check

I apply to check whether user Kamakatsu (talk) is another ID of user Banzaiblitz (talk). Banzaiblitz uses lots of IDs in different article and now for talk page of Nanking Massacre, there is a new ID to support Banzaiblitz. This new ID was registered today and claim he is not Banzaiblitz. Hence, I apply to a user check. Thank you.Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014‎

EasyTherePilgrim, Fightcats & Golden Prime

Hi you were the administrator who investigated the sock puppetry of Golden Prime and I appreciate your effort to maintain order in Wikipedia.

I just patrolled the page Tiger versus lion again and found Fightcats recently made some lengthy nonconstructive edits using similar invalid materials by Golden Prime after the block of his sock/meat puppetry EasyTherePilgrim. I just did a Google search using the keywords appearing in EasyTherePilgrim's edits as his claims and actions were very unusual for a new user like citing Ken Spiro source/claiming the article was based on Martial's invalid opinions (which is not - none of the sources in the article is based on Martial and they are mostly independent sources), and I found that Golden Prime made a lengthy post in a forum a few days after block on Feb 3, attacking and posting links to our Tiger versus lion article and making all the false claims EasyTherePilgrim has trying to push - this explained all the unusual actions of EasyTherePilgrim like his (Ken Spiro/Martia source pushing and all our sources being invalid claims) and the fact that EasyTherePilgrim picked up at Tiger versus lion on Feb 3, which was exactly the date Golden Prime attacked our article in that forum, can hardly be a coincidence he claimed in his block appeal. In the same thread there you can also see another active poster Fightcats pushing Golden Prime's materials as well. In fact Golden Prime and Fightcats have been posting in that attack thread since 2012 but Golden Prime escalated his attack on our article and editors on Feb 3 2014.

So EasyTherePilgrim, Fightcats & Golden Prime are all related as they originate from the same attack site. Does Wikipedia allow me to post the link of that "attack site" here? Besides, as the sock puppetry investigation of Golden Prime has closed, should I open another sock puppetry/meat puppetry investigation of Fightcats? Thanks a lot. BigCat82 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I just replied. Thank you. BigCat82 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre

I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".

Kwamikagami

Since you warned me and Kwamikagami to not edit war on the MOS, could you revert this edit from him [1]? This has no consensus, and the matter is currently under RFC and at TfD. I'm tired of Kwamikagami's constant POV-pushing and forum-shopping. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting yourself. I've let them a message asking them to revert themselves. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that didn't do much. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Try number two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that didn't do much either. I can't say I'm surprised given their history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely looking like that. Might be best just to ignore the edit and wait until the discussions are over and you've got consensus behind you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that MOSNUM stays at the proverbial WP:WRONGVERSION and that people are told to use a POV fork of a template which should be deleted under WP:CSD#T3. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well both templates are listed so they can use they can pick the one they want to use. I've asked on AN for admin to close it so this'll be at an end. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you tell Kwamikagami to stop his pointy behaviour? Stradivarius closed the {{val2}} deletion discussion and deleted/moved it to the sandbox. where before Kwamikagami's was to use AWB to convert {{val}} to {{val2}}, now he's going on an AWB rampage to change the use of {{val}} to {{+-}} [e.g. [2]], claiming "MOS compliance". This is pointy behaviour of the highest order, and makes it a pain in the ass to maintain articles because whenever the RfC on val will close, we'll have to either go through Kwamikagami's edit history and mass revert him, or go on an AWB spree of our own to undo the damage. Warn him, block him, I don't care, but please do something. Or I can take it to ANI if you prefer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm you seem to be away, I'll go to ANI. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...

If you are endorsing the investigation against Toby,who is blatantly obvious not me and any check will confirm this, perhaps you can at least take a look at this, which has been left alone for days [3] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've declined the CheckUser request because all of the accounts in the SPI archive are older then 3 months which makes CU pretty much useless. I don't have time to have a look through the evidence at the moment but I'll try sometime this week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do, the user users the same arguments, phrases, sentences and sources. Please take note that were numerous banned sockpuppets of EPM including IP's(they are listed in previous cases). See example of almost identical sentences used

• Windows66

Poles were 'Aryan', in the districts the ethnic Poles were placed into the 'Aryan side' and were subject to laws such as being forbid to buy or engage in any sort of interaction with Jews, any ethnic Pole helping Jew(s) were given the death penalty

• Previous sockpuppet:

After the invasion of Poland in 1939 the streets were straight away rounded into the "Aryan Side" and the "Jewish Side" and any Poles that helped Jews by forging them "Aryan Papers" to pretend to be ethnic Poles were given the death penalty

This case has taken so many days, It would be good to see it resolved. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to check my IP and my history, I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. Just because I've used evidence which is already mentioned in the talk pages of related articles does not make me a sock puppet. It really makes me wonder why you won't dispute with me and constantly just report me and accuse me of sock puppetry, I've opened discussions on the talk pages, why not discuss? There is ample amounts of evidence to support what I am saying, I have not removed anything without reason, I mean see the here, its not that what you are saying is wrong or is disputed but rather that it does not belong to be there or is already mentioned, e.g "The Nazis because of this declared Slavs to be untermenschen (subhumans)" - Poles are Slavs, there is no need to repeat the info. Just because you simply don't like the fact I question some text that was placed into articles that is wrong does not make me a sock puppet. You have added incorrect text into articles, of course this will be removed, why don't respond to me on talk pages such as [4] and [5]?--Windows66 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the above rant is basically a copy of the previous sockuppet of EPM(blocked now), same arguments and similar sentences:

[6] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblock

Why did you refuse to unblock me?--188.77.180.153 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Callanecc! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

doe B

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

do you recall ..

I remember not too long ago, a couple weeks, there was some pages being created about Asian gangs, and this spilled over to other articles. I've recently seen two new articles, Sindikat0, and 0xo. I'm reluctant to do anything, and would like to defer to someone who is familiar with the case. Any ideas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi,

I'm just getting around to editing the Jennifer McCray Rincón page since it had problems and it said to contact you first before just creating a new one.

Thanks KRLatvbx (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent closure at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Hello Callanecc. Please double-check your recent edit. It appears that User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus has 6,260 edits to article space which is way more than the 500 edits needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

AWB

Thanks for your help. I should refrain from making rash editing decisions whilst intoxicated. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No that wasn't your fault, I think in what I think was my sleep deprived state I clicked on the wrong person's count link. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Shiba Inu and The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius

Extend PC time? Or upgrade to semi? You know, I think I'm too exhausted to check on pages pending changes. Why can't many administrators check them themselves? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Shiba Inu, looks like it's settled down strangely enough but I'll keep watching. That Jimmy Neutron article now expires in August, since there are good edits too I'll hold off on the protection. Cos we're all busy dealing with the backlogs of pages which people have reported. And the ability to be able to extend PC protection given current edits is a new concept (that is you can't do that with a semi). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahir edit warring

Hi Callanecc, you recently blocked 207.34.229.196 (talk · contribs) for warring at Ahir, following a report at WP:AN3. They're back trying to make exactly the same poor edits, despite me initiating discussions at Talk:Ahir#Ragas and Talk:Ahir#The_People_of_India. I also think it likely that they are 199.71.244.137 (talk · contribs), who is making the same edits and would equate with a home/work socking from Ontario. What's to do? I've just had to self-revert because I may have breached 3RR. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'd it a few weeks, hopefully that'll convince them to give up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It might get them to the talk page, which I guess is the preferred outcome. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

#117960

Can you check #117960 at ACC? A user account with similar username was created on 14 Feb. I can not decide if it is the same user. I have added notes in the comment section. Tito☸Dutta 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 got it, I haven't looked deeply into it. But it had to be declined anyway, so if you aren't sure if it's the same person it's easier to give them the boilerplate message which gives them some info anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ted Nugent

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ted Nugent. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Callanecc:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

rangeblock

Hey, Callanecc, could you take a look at User talk:Wraith808? They got caught up in the 216.52.207.64/26 rangeblock, which they say is a corporate network, rather than an open proxy. I'm not totally up on open proxy identification or anything, so could you give it a glance when you have a moment? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of file hosting services

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Only one revert so I'm happy for it to expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Horowitz Composer

Hello Callanec,

I corresponded with you recently about the article on Richard Horowitz. You restored it with the condition that I put up all the sources. I have since been making a list of the appropriate sources to cite them correctly. Prior to me being able to insert the sources, another moderator deleted the article. Could you please restore the article so I can insert the sources?

Jeanettebonds (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Jeanettebonds

I restored the page and AFD so you could have a chance to make your case on the AFD. As that didn't happen the page was deleted again. If you'd like it to be restored please take it to WP:Deletion review following the instructions on that page. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorse

Can you endorse this for a checkuser? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius, I am 99.9 percent sure I uncovered two new socks tonight and I think there are probably sleepers too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Shivani Financial' AFD

Check the recent edit history. Best wishes. OccultZone (Talk) 11:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Rollbacked and blocked. Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore page can be locked. If somebody wants that article it can be requested, or recreated with better sources. But it cannot be, because it lacked notability. OccultZone (Talk) 11:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's recreated I can salt it, but at the moment protection isn't necessary. Likewise if they continue vandalising the AFD page I'll semi it, but it isn't needed yet either. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196

Hi Callanecc. I don't think the IP 62.44.135.196 and its IP sock are Vgleer puppets. The named account is, but imo, the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196 when referring to the two IPs should be separate from the Vgleer SPI. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, there were definitely behavioural similarities between the IPs and the account reported with them and with the account and Vgleer. It doesn't really matter a great deal now that they've been dealt with, so I don't really see a need to unarchive and refile and archive in a different place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc. No problem. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE: Who can give notice of discretionary sanctions on a page?

Hi Callanecc, the articles 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and 2014 Crimean crisis would obviously fall under the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions, but I'm not sure if, as a non-administrator, I'm allowed to place a notice on the talk pages? Or if an admin would be required? If so, I'd love it if you were able to help! Both articles are, for obvious reasons, being heatedly edited by editors with more or less open convictions supporting either side of the conflict.

I'm writing because I see you were the admin who gave notice to Talk:Svoboda (political party), which I've been editing a lot, recently. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No an admin doesn't need to place the warning on a talk page anyone can do that. But it is up to an admin (whenever they warn or sanction) whether that page is actually part of the topic area. I've added the notice to both talk pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Internacional20

Hello, could you please block Internacional20 (talk · contribs). I believe it's a sock of Mauricio80. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've endorsed it for a CheckUser to take a look at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)

Can this article be restored? Your deletion reasoning was related to it being linked to the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand), but obviously this is neither an ANZ network or a Disney Channel network, so I think it's an inadvertent deletion. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. It was deleted as it was part of a redirect chain which led to the article which I deleted from the AFD. Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, no problem. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Kafkasmurat>

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user [[User:<Kafkasmurat>|<Kafkasmurat>]] ([[User talk:<Kafkasmurat>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Kafkasmurat>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Kafkasmurat>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Kafkasmurat>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Kafkasmurat>|block user]] · block log) – Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Sanction being appealed <one revert per twenty four hours> Administrator imposing the sanction [[User:<Callanecc>|<Callanecc>]] ([[User talk:<Callanecc>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Callanecc>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Callanecc>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Callanecc>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Callanecc>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Callanecc>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Callanecc>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Callanecc>|RfA]]) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by <Kafkasmurat> I'm now thinking that first settlers' reign at politically controversial articles. Isn't that weird Armenia- Azerbaijan related articles has so many interference? The owners of Armenia related articles don't allow anything to do. Nearly all of talk page edits are reverted. How will we become a free encyclopedia with ethnic struggles? I didn't harm Wikipedia. I just offended the owners. We should examine the right to requests_for_arbitration of users like Étienne Dolet, who specialized at ethnic manipulation. I was just providing information with sources. I'didn't attack anyone. Just told that all of the users edits are anti-Turkish. It's not attack, it's fact. I appeal the sanctions, to be lifted.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by <Callanecc> Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Kafkasmurat> Result of the appeal by <Kafkasmurat> This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• This appeal belongs at WP:AE as it was imposed there and I don't feel comfortable overturning a sanction imposed by consensus even though technically I can. Also your statement does absolutely nothing to suggest that you understand the reasons you were sanctioned. In particular statements such as "Just told that all of the users edits are anti-Turkish" show a blatant misunderstanding of the civility policy and no personal attacks. To be very clear you tell any editor that they are anti-Turkish it is a personal attack and so will be met with a block of up to a month. You are treading on thin ice, if you break through there are blocks and a topic ban as was stated by commenting admins in the enforcement request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"...users like Étienne Dolet, who specialized at ethnic manipulation." and "Just told that all of the users edits are anti-Turkish. It's not attack, it's fact."? Please remain WP:CIVIL and stop personally attacking me. I don't appreciate it when you say these things to me when talking to other users. This statement is in itself a violation of your topic ban. Callanecc, where's the best venue to have this examined? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally allow just sanctioned users a little bit of leeway and in this case they were appealing which they're allowed to do. It's best to just drop this one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi there, would you be prepared to have another look at the block of User:Parrot_of_Doom. As mentioned on that thread, I'd agree that the stuff POD was reverting was a clear BLP violation (not to mention that it comes from a user with a history of dubious sourcing and borderline racist diatribe; I really don't think that article is one that an editor who thinks that "Wikipedia is a platform for Islamic extremism" should be editing anyway...). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Callanecc, it's been a few hours. I just happened upon the ANI thread and spent the last twenty minutes looking at the article history and the various diffs. I agree with Black Kite, whose position is supported by Hijiri88. I hope you don't mind (you're probably doing something real right now or you would have responded already), but I'm going to unblock PoD, since I believe they were correct in their BLP invocation; the minor incivilities on either side weren't given as a reason for the block and they were minor anyway. Given your edit notice also I feel confident that you won't mind terribly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem with the unblock, thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Butler

I think you made a mistake imposing a topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tom Butler without even addressing the canvassing that occurred in this case. There really is the appearance that a half dozen editors who focus on pseudoscientific topics can get anyone who opposes them topic banned or blocked for "disruptive" behavior (defined as disagreement). I can't think of another subject area on Wikipedia where 6 or 7 editors have the power to get editors who don't agree with them kicked out. And people wonder why editors with a neutral point of view have avoided editing certain articles...no one wants to contradict the small majority and get blocked. If not at SPI, then at AN/I or AE. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As a few admins who work at AE have said canvassing isn't really that much of a problem as it's the admins who make the call not based on the number of editors who comment which I for one wouldn't even be able to guess at. We look for the evidence presented and work from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary Edit War

Hello. I'm here because I've noticed you have banned one user Atsme for an edit war for actions on Anjem Choudary. I would like ask you to consider futher investigation. It's not that I disagree with the ban but I question if there's a balance of fairness in this ban. This is the second edit war with many of the same people involved. The previous one took place on 2/24/14. At this point I do not feel that an edit war is the only disruptive editing taking place. With that I'm not sure this ban will effectively do anything but prevent one user from editing for 36 hours.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• The user was blocked, not banned. I agree that a 36-hour block on what appears to be pretty much an SPA account might not be enough. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon I actually meant block when I said ban. I don't know what you mean by SPA. While this particular user has certainly earned a 36 hour block if not more, I think this situation does call for more. It really has got out of hand. I'm not asking you block anyone else.

I'm just saying that only one thing was addressed. I'm asking you to get involved in any content dispute. I think behavoir on both ends may have lead to this. I think it does need to be addressed. I could have been a major contributing factor. I don't think I have but I could have been. I'd just ask you consider the over all situation and see if you feel anything else should be addressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Drmies meant that Atsme is a single purpose account so that they'll be back after their block has expired. I agree mostly however I'd rather wait and see what they do after their block expires. If they continue with the same sort of behaviour I'll long term or indef them but I'd rather give them a chance to see what will happen first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The articles they work on are hotbeds of POV editing, and I have yet to see them being productive. I looked at behavior and content only narrowly--narrow enough to establish that Parrot of Doom was correct in reverting them. (Admins typically stay out of content discussions, but in such cases you have to look carefully to see if someone correctly invokes BLP policy, for instance, during an edit war.) I saw two problematic editors and I will be keeping an eye on the matter: the article is as yet salvageable through normal means, as far as I can tell right now. Thank you, and Callanecc, thanks for this and the message above. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I particularly disagree that Atsme is SPA. I think disruptive behavoir however will continue when she returns. It may not be edit warring however she has done more than that. Point illustrating for instance I think can be seen on Anjem Choudary. There was forum shopping. The thing is I don't think she is trying to be a disruptive editor. She seems very much to be a new user that got ran off before and came back to try again. The behavoir of others hasn't been ideal either. While I think she paved the way for uncivility, the fact is two wrongs do not make a right. If you adress her behavoir but not that of everyone else then I don't feel your action will make her take stock and adjust accordingly.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion

LimosaCorel, who you blocked today for sockpuppeting, is evading his block by editing from a new IP address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:C27:5D5A:F5A1:705B He has so far, already reverted one editor, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ash_Wednesday&diff=598239846&oldid=598238687 after being unable to edit with his account on the same page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ash_Wednesday&diff=598217112&oldid=598208511

Editing from yet one more IP address on the same article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:E54D:20C3:B245:C208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked both. I'll hold of on page protection as it'll mean others won't be able to edit (including you). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was nice of you to follow up with me so fast. I think that's a good solution but if it happens again, which I think it will, there should probably be more consquences for LimosaCorel, who controls all these IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Account creator right

I no longer require the account creator rights. Thanks for granting them to me. Viola-Ness (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the user right. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion - HistorNE

Callanecc, user:HistorNE is continuing his block evasion at the IP 109.60.14.112[7]. He also reverted me with the summary "rv judeofascist liar". Any help in resolving this nastiness would appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

On WP:AIV they RevDel some revisions but seemed to forgot this. --///EuroCarGT 04:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --///EuroCarGT 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Surreal Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		In recognition of being the first administrator in my long Wikipedia career of enduring blocks to actually be willing to discuss the block with me and seriously consider whether the situation could be handled if I was unblocked. And then unblock! jps (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane LTA Report

Hi there. I know that you are busy, like User:DoRD but... If you find the time, could you please file a WP:LTA Report for this guy, and link it on his SPI mainpage? I'm not familiar with that kind of stuff so I thought that I'd leave it to you, in case DoRD doesn't get around to it before you do. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary and echo the suggestion given to you by DoRD and Bbb23, please just spend sometime away from this sock master. If you notice a sock report it then drop it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

IP block

Good IP block on 41.132.179.212 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ), but you should also be aware that he is a sock of 41.133.0.152 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) who is stalking Mezigue's edits; we'll keep an eye out and report further activity. Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE

Hey, I noticed that you're familiar with this sock. I find the edits of this relatively new user to be unusual. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a message, if they keep going then I'd be happy to block for abusing multiple accounts. That being said, I think this is a new behaviour for this puppeteer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo indeffed the account based on a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Another CU has confirmed it's a Mangoeater1000 sock.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I've had a chance to take a look, that's definitely him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes much more sense considering the edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Inadequate behavior

(WP:ANI is protected)

I would tell both of them to calm down. A "2014 ..." military topic is too recent. Editors are not warriors. I would advise Aleksandr Grigoryev to avoid sentences like "the fact that you dont know anything about military". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

84.127.80.114, still, how is it OK to throw around threats? My statement could argued without threats or insults. Am I not right? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev is right. Both users should make an effort to keep to the point, stop any quarrel and report the one who does not stop. It looks like they already stopped. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI "Tracker"

Hi. I just noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UpdatedTrackerAccurate and the associated account blocks. I had noticed these users making the changes to Sheldon Adelson but the changes weren't vandalism and weren't violating NPOV so I mostly ignored them. Should I have reported them as possible socks? I assumed they might have been paid editors but without malicious intent it seemed beneath notice. While I'm aware of socking I've never personally dealt with it. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The checkuser which was done would have picked them up if they were the same person. It's useful to report them all so the admins patrolling and CUs have a wider range to look through. However once the CU is done there really isn't much point adding an account which existed when the CU was done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bonender

A 24h block has been imposed to user:Bonender per [[8]. However, it appears that his block log hasn't been updated [[9]]. Thanks in advance for your time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Spam on Surge and Urge

I see you protected Urge_(soft_drink), but they are also hitting Surge_(soft_drink). Could you protect it as well? I have been maintaining those pages for some time now and am disappointed this keeps happening. While I appreciate what they are doing in marketing Urge to the US, the wiki is not a place for their links. Ilikenwf (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Re: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 I've been trying to improve this article in a real way for some time but it continually devolves into frustrating, nitpicking issues with a few of the users. Now a user has gone through the article and removed all the references to the airline's press releases, claiming that they are dynamic primary sources, and that as primary sources they should not be used. I think they are reputable and I have not been interpreting them.

I'm relatively new but I think I'm following the rules and assuming good faith, but the article just cannot be maintained the way it is.

... so I don't know what to do, really. Roches (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to take the issue to the article's talk page where it can be discussed. That is, whether to include it or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect of MH370 article

Hi, saw you semi-protected the article. Was there a consensus for this, or a discussion on the week-long semi-protect? That's a pretty long semi-protect duration, so if it can be unprotected earlier, that'd be better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've unprotected it (see below). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Block log oddness

This is weird. You announced a block[10] and the user hasn't edited since[11] but there is nothing in the block log.[12] This was pointed out to me by another user[13] and I did the usual cache clearing, so I don't think I am seeing an old version.

No harm is occurring and there doesn't seem to be any need to take any sort of action, but I am curious as to whether the log has some sort of bug, there was an error in the blocking (which might mean that a typo blocked someone else) or whether I am wrong about the cache and am looking at on old version. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think you got it right, although it was not exactly a typo: Pinkbeast got blocked instead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Callanec, my friend, forgive me if I've screwed up. However, in your absence and given the circumstances, I unblocked Pinkbeast and blocked Bonender. The end time of Bonender's block is identical to what Pinkbeast's was when you blocked him. If I did wrong, feel free to beat me up. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree. If anyone must be beaten up, it is me, who instigated this, not you Bbb23 who helped out in this inadvertent mess. :) So, Callanecc, please train your sights accordingly. ---> Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No that's exactly right Bbb and Dr.K. no idea how I managed to block the wrong user and then miss that I had. Thanks to both of you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries Callanecc. How does the saying go, "All's well..." etc. At least I'm glad I'm not on your sights. :) Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Suppression

I've filed a complaint over inappropriate usage of suppression as related to [[14]]. I did not ask for sanctions but I have asked Arbcom to review and overturn. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, but for the record I RevDel'd then it was oversighted in case you weren't sure which option is set at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But I will point out that there was more than just a name as you stated on ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The infirmation included his city and country but his username also stated the country and its hardly contact info, as mentioned nothing was too revealing and it actually was a great source of information to identify the socks this user was using and the areas of interest. I'm interested to know what exactly was so objectionable? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(tps) While I am not the oversighter who handled this request, I can say that, for privacy reasons, we do not openly discuss material that has been suppressed. I understand that it may be frustrating, but if you have filed a complaint (with AUSC?) as you said, please leave it up to the subcommittee to resolve. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the details themselves but I am asking as to the general non specific information this admin saw that did the suppression. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I can't see it now it's been suppressed by an oversighter (I deleted it not suppressed it) I can't be sure. But there was personally identifying information on a minor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:like protection

Hello Callenecc,

You recently protected template:like. But I can't for the life of me figure out what makes it a WP:HRT aNd your edit summary wasn't very enlightening. I also didn't see a request for protection and there hadn't been like an ongoing vandalism problem that I'm aware of. I'm no template expert but if I understand correctly this template is transcluded only 941 times and I feel like if that makes a template "high risk" then there are not very many templates that are low-risk. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 06:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

See this, it currently has 941 transclusions. I generally lower standard (closer to 750 transclusions) for templates which are used on talk pages, so the transclusions will continue to grow and changes may negatively effect user's and discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. But I feel like it is totally not a "high-risk template" if it is transcluded 941 times total. Especially since there's not a history of people repeatedly vandalizing the template. I read thought he discussion that created the high-risk template page, which is about much-more-frequently used templates. And I noticed that there is some opposition to protecting minor-ish templates like this on the WP:HRT talk page. May I kindly request that you withdraw the protection of this one template? That would satisfy me and not lead me to pursue this further. Thanks for your time, I know you are busy. AgnosticAphid talk 06:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reduced to semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370‎

Hi Callan, it's generally preferable to leave high-profile articles like this unprotected as far as possible, and to protect it only for short spells if protection is necessary, because it's thought that articles on breaking news events help to recruit new editors, and because many IPs have constructive edits to offer even if there is a bit of disruption. Would you consider unprotecting it? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've unprotected. I suspect when I was working through the backlog at RFPP exactly what the article was about didn't click. Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question Re: Warning

Callanecc, you mentioned in your notification on my Talk Page that I could bring up any questions, so I wanted to run something by you. Keeping my edits to Sheldrake at a minimum still resulted in profound hostility, and even abstaining from the page has not stopped harassing behavior (especially with 76). I was in the process of dealing with this problematic conduct by certain Sheldrake editors (this included those from my ANI and potential future actions against 76) and had hoped to pursue means to resolve this kind of problem in the future. However, now I am worried that the broad scope of the warning against me (ie. "a very low bar") will make it easy for any action I take, regardless of its legitimacy, to be labelled as disruptive and used to block me. I feel there are issues that should be addressed, both in terms of personal attacks against me and inappropriate conduct on certain articles, but I want to pursue these through the proper channels without being blocked. Do you have any advice? The Cap'n (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming they have been notified of the discretionary sanctions already, a report at WP:AE which includes diffs and explanations of why those diffs are unacceptable in context is the proper channel. I however would suggest that you spend a month or two away from Sheldrake, and probably pseudoscience generally and get some experience in less controversial and hot headed areas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to lay low with the Sheldrake article or other pseudoscience articles, but I was hoping for a clarification on one point. The folks (like 76) who have used personal attacks declared that they did so as a result of my involvement on the Sheldrake page, and frequently cite my pro-fringe arguments (well, cite is the wrong word, since there have been no such citations, since I am, in fact, very far from pro-fringe). Any ANI or AE I pursue would likely include a few references and diffs to the Sheldrake page, as this is where much of this behavior is rooted and began against me, though the purpose is to address personal conduct, not article content. Would that be considered getting involved in pseudoscience? Thanks again for your input. The Cap'n (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello Callanecc. I was wondering if you might be able to protect a page for me? I was hoping you could add semi protection to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The request is two-fold: the film is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the films garner high page views and are very susceptible to vandalism. This film premiered tonight, and will be releasing shortly, so given experience, the IP vandals will be out in full force. I am hoping to prevent that before it starts (as has been done on recent MCU films before their release). I know protections should not be punitive, but these edits will prevent the hard working editors like myself, from adequately adding the necessary info for when it releases. The second reason, is a sequel date was revealed today as well, so that will most likely bring in more vandals. I hope you will make this request. If I may suggest, protection through the end of April should be sufficient. If you aren't willing to go with semiprotection, could pending changes protection be an option? Thank you very much for the consideration and help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles aren't edit protected preemptively so I can only judge based on what's there. At the moment there aren't enough disruptive/unconstructive edits by non-autoconfirmed users to justify protected and the rate of edits coming in is way to high for pending changes. If the number of unconstructive edits by non-autoconfirmed users increases then please do let me know (or put a request at WP:RFPP) and we can look at semi protecting it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

# 118855

Could you check #118855 at ACC? A huge number of requests have come from that IP in last couple of months. Tito☸Dutta 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've created it, it's a school IP so we can AGF plus I didn't see anything sus in the contribs or deleted contribs of the created accounts I checked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Registered Agents

You reinstated vandalism from repeat IP vandals/socks/SPAs on Registered Agent article citing "looks like advertising for them." I'm not sure what "advertising" benefit would be derived - all of the Big 3/4/5, etc. companies have articles and the section now has orphan links from Big Four. I was using other Big Fours as a precedent. Shouldn't Big_Four_(audit_firms) and Big_Three_(management_consultancies), etc. also then be deleted as "advertising?" Or ? I wish to learn more since maybe I mo understand. If I have citation saying that the top three soft drinks are Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper, and state that, is that advertising? Or ? Thank you in advance. LoyolaGirl (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, which is an intention is disrupt or damage the project. There is a difference between integrating them into an article with a source which explicitly states that they are the big four companies offering Registered agents then it's not advertising or WP:SYNTH. The Google Book reference doesn't say it explicitly and doesn't base it on evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

On the citation, I think I understand though I hope I'm wrong because it would make every citation I've ever added incorrect. So the "LLCs for Dummies" book reference saying that they are the "Big Four" in the section "Calling in the Big Four", doesn't qualify as a citation for them being the "Big Four" because the book doesn't include its own citations to other sources in that section of the book? Please clarify. [15] Also, what about the additional reference I posted to the registeredagentinfo.com article about the big four? Same reason or ? If this is the case, I think I need to go back over everything I've ever written, cited, or edited. Even my law school books didn't include a citation next to the big four, they just said who they were and I just assumed that the textbook was correct. As for the vandals, erasing the big four section was only a component of their activities. They have been routinely deleting other citations, sections, rewriting sections with gibberish, untruths, and uncited nonsense. There is a definite intent to damage the article regardless of the one section. LoyolaGirl (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Violation of ARBMAC ban by Maurice07

Hi Callanecc, FYI Maurice07 violated his ARBMAC ban by adding a picture on the article Eurozone crisis showing Greece as the first domino of the crisis. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see relevant AE topic ban. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is a clear violation as they're only banned from Greek-Turkish relations. While the picture does relate to Greece and Turkey I don't feel that there is enough crossover to warrant a sanction. Though you should feel free to go to AE if you'd like to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc for your advice. Before going to AE I'll try to see if any disruptive pattern emerges. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if its final

Hi Callanecc, ok if standard offer is the last chance for unblocking me then I take it. During the previous 6 months, i got many troubles but now it is time to stop. My last sock Codswick was blocked on 12 March 2014. So after six months, on 12 September, i will submit unblock request again.Ok? And will you please leave a message on Yasir72.multan by giving me standard offer. Previously, Smsarmad give me standard offer but he is not an admin. Please you give me standard offer so that i confirmed. Thanks. - Yasir72.multan - 119.160.119.246 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) - read more on Smsarmad's talk page.

I'm not going to unblock you unilaterally, when you post the unblock request if I believe you deserve another go and the blocking admin(s) are reasonably open to it I'll post a request on WP:AN the community consider Template:2nd chance. From there it's up to the community. However from this post it is obvious that you do not understand what sockpuppetry is, so to be crystal clear you must only use the Yasir72.multan account to post on User talk:Yasir72.multan while ever you have talk page access, if your access to the talk page is revoked you must not edit Wikipedia at all. Every time you evade the block (like the post I'm replying to) is resets the clock and makes it less likely that the community will allow you to be unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ACC

Hi Callanecc. I wonder if you might do me a small favour? I've just used the ACC tool for the first time, and wondered whether you'd be able to double-check what I've done - obviously it would be nice to know if I'm making any mistakes, and since the interface is now rather different from that shown in the guide I'm not 100% certain that I'm hitting the right buttons. (99.9%, yes...). The accounts I've done this morning are Mpoltorak, Farnaz Fae and Chagarlamudisaikrishna, and I also declined Sara_Howard as being too similar to an existing user. Assuming I've done everything right, I'll carry on, but if I'm going to screw up enough to get the tool removed, best to do so early before I do any damage... Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've checked all four and I can't see anything you've missed or should have (not) done. So feel free to keep going. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Huzzah, I keeps me tools! Thanks for that. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help with the Canon DSLR table

Hey Callanecc,

Please help me on the template:Canon EOS digital cameras template table page? The user Jcitme continues to revert the table back to a new version that uses a flagship row and he is being very rude about it. I'm not pleased to have somebody tell me "no, no, no and no" when I am trying to make points to them and they respond like that to me like I'm under the age of 10... We are discussing this stuff in the Talk page but I don't know what I am doing so I can't fight him on this. I can tell you that the edits he keeps reverting to are changes that were made AFTER I cleaned the table up at the beginning of the month. So the table was in one state before March. Then I made some fixes. Then somebody made changes after my changes that changed the character of the table, so then I tried to put it back to the old way, and now Jctime keeps reverting to the new version that came after my changes. I don't even know how long he's had an account on this Wikipedia thing but he has a very strong preference for the version that came after my little fixes. This is extremely frustrating. I am talking about all this on the Talk page and I can't fight this alone. Please come in and render an outside opinion!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the other user to discuss it with you on the template's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He stopped responding to me after Pointed out he was disregarding addressing a relevant point I was making. When the protection lock goes away, do I just undo the changes he made to my modifications since he has stopped responding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No you probably shouldn't do that. I forgot to reply to their comment, so I'll do that and see how it goes. Just be patient. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Content on Nexas America

Good day!

Can I get the back up of my deleted content regarding Nexas America.

Thanks in advance.

Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremymcniel (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not going to do you any good because it is very promotional and there are no sources. I'd suggest that it would be better to start from scratch. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EstebanJals

Thank you for tending to the SPI reports, but I had requested that an administrator look at the first version of Omnitrans Channel, the one that was deleted on 20 February. It would have been created by an EstebanJals account, possibly one that has not been detected. —rybec 08:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The account was already blocked, and now tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Cyberchase episodes

This article has been experiencing a lot of WP:OR and vandalism for the past 4 months. There are very few users who are able to keep reverting the disruptive changes when they happen, and these unexplained additions by multiple IPs are increasing, so can you please semi-protect the article for a month? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. After two weeks the page will be automatically unprotected., two weeks Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Later Jin (Five Dynasties)

Hello Callanecc, and thank you for taking care of Later Jin (Five Dynasties)! I see that you moved the article back to the capitalized form but quickly reverted to the non-capitalized Later Jin (Five dynasties), saying that the move hadn't been thoroughly discussed yet. From the discussion at WT:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Dynasties, however, it seems that even the user who had moved it to the non-capitalized form agrees that "Five Dynasties" should be capitalized. He is also the one who tagged the page to be moved back. Since nobody is left arguing that the page should be at Later Jin (Five dynasties), I think it would be reasonable to return it to its original capitalized title. No matter what you decide on this issue, do keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to the capitalised version as a self-requested revert of the original move. Thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you! Madalibi (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder on [SPI on Ryoung122]

Callanecc,

I thought I'd send a friendly reminder on your talk page regarding the SPI you checked three days ago. I left my investigation results on the SPI page, but I was not sure if you had reviewed my comments yet since it is "closed" but that you did leave a message for checkusers something to the effect of "Could the clerks hold off on archiving this one, I need to have a chat to a CU about it."

By the way, I realized I had left my comments in the wrong section, and please feel free to move my comments to the correct location in that SPI. As you will see, if not yet, it was an impersonator of the real Robert Young, "ryoung122", so I feared that the SPI may have been a rubber-stamp on accusing "ryoung122" for the 'suspected sockpuppets'. You mentioned WP:DUCK but it wasn't a duck. ;-)

I don't remember exactly what a checkuser does, and whether you as an administrator have the ability to see IP addresses (or that's why there is a CU group), so please let me know what you find, particularly when the vandal also tweaked a living person's page to show that he had died whereas it wasn't the case, upsetting the victim & his family and friends. Cheers, CalvinTy 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've had a look through the evidence you submitted and while it looks somewhat clear that it isn't Ryoung122 it doesn't really matter that much now that the sock account has been blocked. If Ryoung122 wants to return to Wikipedia we can work out with them whether it's his account, until then it doesn't really matter where it's archived. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:I League stadiums

You removed T3 noticed on this and a few templates for speedy deletions. These template redirects are not really used anywhere and just multiple spellings for the same template. If it were a page redirect, it'd be understandable, but what's the use of preserving unused template redirects? I am not opposing, just would like to know. Coderzombie (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CSD#T3 or either of the redirect CSD criteria. If you want them to be deleted they'll need to go to WP:RFD (see WP:RFD#DELETE). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

Thanks for blocking Walter Gorlitz - he has been making a nuisance of himself and needed to be taught a lesson. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with teaching him a lesson, it's about stopping the edit war which was going on and stopping them in the future. Also there seems to be something strange going on with your talk page. Try clicking the link in your signature. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever...B. Fairbairn (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Wonderfl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

IP block

Hello Callanecc. You blocked IP User talk:24.210.138.11 on March 6, due to their edits on The New 52. This IP is once again creating the same, disruptive edits, and I was hoping you would look into reblocking them. Thank you very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request for Redmoon660

You blocked Redmoon660 for sockpuppetry. There is now an unblock request at User talk:Redmoon660, in which the editor acknowledges that his/her use of multiple accounts was unacceptable, and undertakes not to do the same again. My own feeling is that, as far as the sockpuppetry issue is concerned, there is no reason not to take the editor's statement as made in good faith, and since the block no longer serves any preventive purpose, if sockpuppetry were the only issue, I would be happy to unblock. However, I am less than 100% comfortable about unblocking an editor with a clear conflict of interest, who is here only to promote a point of view, and who has vigorously done so through nearly 2000 edits in a few months. Maybe you would like to look at the unblock request and my comments about it, and indicate whether you have any opinion on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ink Master rejection revision request

I would like to submit a request that you revise your decision to reject protection on the page Ink_Master_(season_4). Second time in 2 days I have reverted the page to undo multiple minor edits. Since the season started, I have had to correct multiple falsities in unregistered users posts. I continually have to change edits that contain misleading information based on opinions and not facts posted by unregistered users. The information I am posting is from the source. The talk page is not utilized by the unregistered users to discuss their views and reasons for wanting the changes. These guys are changing information based on their opinion and its becoming disruptive, in my opinion. I have been a primary contributor to Ink Master for 2+ years and have been open to changes so long as communication is had on the talk page as to better ways of doing it. I understand that we want an open format so anyone can edit, I like and agree with this format, but at what point do we draw the line when it comes to inaccurate information being posted knowing that information is opinion based? The source I use is the owner of the series. It has references throughout the page. I would ask for at least a month of protection. This should deter the one(s) who are primarily performing the opinionated edits from making them based on opinion. Kevintampa5 (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've pending changes protected the page for three months. I still don't believe that there is enough activity to warrant semi-protection, however pending changes will give the editors reviewing the article a chance to check edits to the page before they go live. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I fully understand the volume was not so bad as some pages I have seen, and it wouldnt be an issue except for the reasons previously mentioned. Semi-protection for a few weeks will most likely deter the inaccurate edits, or at least encourage the editor to log in, thus making it easier to communicate with him/her to see the reasons for select edits. If this happens, I will request a reduction in protection. Again, thanks for your help!Kevintampa5 (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the Protection information pages, PC1 should allow registered, autoconfirmed and confirmed users to publish edits immediately to live status. Why is it currently requiring my edits to be reviewed? I am autoconfirmed and the primary contributor to the topic. PC1 & PC1 chart. Thanks for any information you provide. Kevintampa5 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's because there were edits by IP address which were still waiting to be approved so yours were still waiting in the queue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please make a decision on self published sources

I have invited you to the following notice board, please reply there :[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Callanecc/Editnotice

Hi Callanecc. :) I just noticed that User talk:Callanecc/Editnotice is template-protected - sorry to be a stickler for the rules, but would you mind changing it to full protection? Template-protection is supposed to be reserved for high-risk templates and Lua modules. Thanks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Stradivarius, happy to though I'd probably drop it to semi. But I was thinking this was a good use of template protection since template editors can edit editnotices? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. Template editors can edit mainspace editnotices not because mainspace editnotices are template-protected, but because mainspace editnotices are protected by the titleblacklist, which template editor rights allow them to bypass. So, there's really no connection between editnotices and template-protection itself, if that makes sense. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I know how it works. :) I was just thinking that since part of the TE right is the trust in being able to edit editnotices it wouldn't hurt to let them edit them in userspace either, but I'm not really concerned either way. When I finish with DYK I'll drop it to semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK promotion problems

Callanecc, none of the six nomination templates you promoted in your recent Prep 4/Queue 4 set were properly done—it looks like you neglected to add the "subst:" before the "DYKsubpage" after the opening braces at the top of the template. I'd do it for you, but then it would look like I was the one who promoted them, and it really should be you.

There's also another thing: if you build the prep set, you shouldn't also be the one to promote it to the queue. It's important to have other pairs of eyes to check a built set and see if there are any issues—the incorrect closure of the templates, for example, but also things like hook wording or set composition: sets are supposed to have a hard upper limit of 50% bios and 50% American hooks unless there's no other choice, and this one has four bios although there are other non-bio, non-American hooks. Something to note for the future. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was wondering why that wasn't working.

Good point, I thought I'd seen other admins doing that, but obviously not. The Senegal coat of arms is one of the very few non-American, non-bios left and I thought it was probably better to keep it for the next Queue. But I take your point, mea culpa. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, there may have been a situation where an admin finished up an incomplete prep set because no queue was ready and a new set was needed immediately for the front page—I don't know for sure, but you might have seen one like that—but such is definitely the exception, and an emergency situation.

Thanks for taking care of the template substitutions—as far as I can tell, there's still one more promoted template that needs fixing: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Turney. While checking it out, I noticed that the article didn't list any of her successful finishes at Sochi, so I found a source and added the information to the article. (All it mentioned was her fall during the opening downhill, which seemed a shame for a Paralympian.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Righto no worries.

Done now and thank you for the help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin

Thank you for Protecting the article Mufaddal Saifuddin. I would further request the Same for Dawoodi Bohra.Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you once again.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra

I would like to have your kind attention to this paragraph from the article Dawoodi Bohra

(The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق‎), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. It was initially created as a subordinate role to support other roles as such Hujja, Dai-ad-Du'at and Dai Balagh. Following the hiding of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb and unavailability of the successor, Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa.[2][3][4])

The above paragraph contradicts the very basic faith of Dawoodi Bohra. It should be written as given in At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim.

(According to "Ṭāyyibī Mustā‘līd" tradition, before At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim went into seclusion his father Al-Amir bi-Ahkami'l-Lah instructed Queen al-Hurrah Arwa al-Sulayhi in Yemen to anoint a vicegerent after the seclusion. The vicegerent, or Da'i al-Mutlaq, would have full authority to govern the community in all matters both spiritual and temporal. She appointed Da'i Zoeb bin musa as First Dai in Yemen.)

further the reference given by asgarli engineer is baised, as asgarali engineer is founder of progressive dawoodi bohra, a minor faction. and is separate from mainstream. I would like to cite more neutral reference, Mr. John Blank who has done his unbiased research upon dawoodi bohra in his book Mullahs on the Mainframe

Thank you for your support in maintaining integrity of wikipedia.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait until there is agreement on the talk page first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Template:Did you know nominations/The Idolmaster 2‎

Hi Callanecc, thanks for taking the time to promote the DYK noms to the prep area. I just wanted to point out that Template:Did you know nominations/The Idolmaster 2‎ is intended for April Fools and is listed under the April Fools DYK page. Could you revert the nomination and hold the hook for that day? (Funnily enough, this isn't the first time this happened...) Thank you! -- クラウド６６８ 07:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Message added 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matty.007 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Captain Ahab

Thank you for putting the Captain Ahab on the DYK-section on the main page. While writing the featured hook, I must have been forgotten to create the wikilink for Herman Melville's name. Can I do this from the Template or must an editor do this since it is on the main page? And if so, would you be so kind...?MackyBeth (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@MackyBeth: As it's on the main page, you'll need to report it to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

2001:1640:5::3:ba

On Indian_Institute_of_Management_Ahmedabad, a user frequently removes sourced content. I had reported it here[17] but nothing happened.[18] OccultZone (Talk) 13:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

They haven't been warned so there's not much I can do without the user first being warned appropriately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Had warned him, but he still removed GA status of the article[19]. OccultZone (Talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

# 119709

Can you check #119709? Conflicting username account was created in February. Same user? --Tito☸Dutta 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That email address has been used for an account already so I've sent a password reset email to it. Whether it's the same account as the conflicting one, I'd guess that it probably is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin

Your intervention is required! Both side is pushing their POV. They just want to publicize "succession controversy" in favor of their favorite leader. There is a fan group of editors, I was invited there to interfere by the minority one. One immediate solution is your intervention or reducing protection to semi-protection. I've my opinion to first make the article in compliance with wiki standards then a RfC to answer those little fraction of editors including multiple SPAs. Once consensus is established by the community, no vandalism would be tolerated. That's it. Looking forward for your opinion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr user:Anupmehra is doing a fine job and I appreciate his efforts for maintaining NPOV in the article of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I agree with his request.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anupmehra and Mufaddalqn:I'd rather not semi-protect it because as you said on the talk page it'll just lead to more edit warring. Perhaps it'd be worth listing it at WP:DRN and see if you can get some more input. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost all involved editors are new editors and no-one has reviewer user-right, except me. I've perhaps never edited that article before. I can only assure that I've no POV. They've their personal opinions as arguments. Editors not discussing their change on the talk page, prefer to edit-war, would simply be reported at AIV/ANI. They are SPAs, they'd be keep coming with new ids. Well, there's SPI for them. Beside protection to prevent edit-warring, AIV works as well (i find it more effective). We can force editors to discuss their change on talk page or keep their POV with them at home. m:Wrong version is a good essay, but if you can spare sometime to look at the contents and sources of the present article, it'd be falsifying it. I was involved to correct the present article, but as it is fully-protected, I technically can not do it and I would never have consensus among POV editors. DRN might solve the problem the same way, forcing editors to acknowledge Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mean-Sounding Template

I understand that you felt the comment about certain attitudes resembling Communism was not well-taken. However, it was patently not a personal attack. If anything, it was an overly dramatic illustration. In any event, I will not restore my comments, but I feel that leaving a mean-sounding authoritarian template on my user page was a suboptimal response. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA states that a personal attack is racial, ... religious, political, ethnic, national, ... directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors and comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. Your comment plainly fits into both of these categories and was a pretty serious example of a personal attack. I'm not arguing the point with you, I'm showing you that it is a personal attack and therefore won't be tolerated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh crap...

Hi Callanecc. I think I've made a cock up on ACC - I've just created User:Sloughetonse, and in some brainfart of a moment, failed to break the username down mentally into Slough - Eton - SE. It's obviously an inappropriate username, since it clearly represents Slough and Eton School. Is there anything I can do to fix this, short of the username block and apologetic message I intend to leave them in a few moments? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Depending on what the email address was you might be able to wait and check their edits to see if a block is needed. Otherwise I'd suggest uw-username asking them to request a rename (ie without blocking them). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I reckon this was intended as an account for the school, rather than for an individual. Pre-emptive blocking isn't something I take lightly, but in this case I think it may be the appropriate course of action. Time for me to take a break from ACC, methinks (if I even keep my access to it after such a cock-up). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it's an honest mistake and you fixed it up as best you could. It's definitely not the first time it's happened so not to worry. I'll check with the other ACC admins but as I said I can't see much coming from it apart from a digital slap on the keyboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How about some Fish and Chips? :P ​—DoRD (talk)​ 08:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Piscatorial intervention would be well deserved. I had rather hoped - after all the trouble I had getting set up on ACC in the first place - that I'd get through at least a month without royally screwing the pooch... 'twas not to be. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue, we've all made issues like this, I myself have made a fair few UPOLs within my first 4 months of ACC but fixing them correctly is what matters - Ignoring them is the issue :) If you want to take a break - feel free but it could have been worse. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I honestly wouldn't worry about such a thing. It's one of those username requests that even if you did break it down to begin with, unless there was something that outstandingly jumped out at you, you should have created the account anyways AGFing that it was a legitimate username. Then you watch their contributions and if it is promo only or something that would be otherwise an issue, then deal with it as such.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hello, Callanecc,
Given the latest case at ARE, I was looking at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#2014 and a warning Second Quantization was given for issuing a DS warning, saying that it had to be given by an uninvolved administrator. If a warning is issued by a editor (who should be also uninvolved), it should include the parameter |admin=no in the template.
So, I wondered about DS warnings like this, this and this...I'm not focusing on this issue because I have a stake in these topics but last fall, during the hubbub about Rupert Sheldrake, I noticed a number of involved editors issuing DS warnings to those editors they disagreed with and now I see that these warnings were never logged in on the Pseudoscience DS page so I don't know if they were considered "official" and whether unofficial warnings were appropriate to deliver to editors' talk pages. The examples I gave were logged in but I had questions about unofficial ones, too.
I've commented on the DS policy review that I took issue with warnings being used as a weapon to silence those one opposes so that is my interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no general prohibition built into DS about any user notifying people on the other side of a dispute. Having said that, doing so can disruptive, isn't collegial and might suggest a battleground approach. Also as far as I am aware a notification issued to a user from a non-admin is just as enforceable as if it were issued by an admin. In any case in the new draft, issuing an alert to someone is exactly the same as being alerted oneself. If they aren't logged I'll sometimes ignore it and sometimes refer to it as the required notification depending on the circumstances. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so two three questions: 1) Was the warning given to SQ about needing to include that parameter in the template incorrect then? And the remark that the warning, whether given by an admin or nonadmin be "uninvolved"? 2) Should nonadmins log in every warning they give out? It sounds like not having warnings logged in can lead to problems later.

Thanks for your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1) You'd need to ask the admin who gave the warning. 1.5) WP:AC/DS doesn't say it explicitly so it's a matter of interpretation. 2) Depends, there is nothing at WP:AC/DS which states that they need to be logged and really it's just done for ease of checking whether someone has been notified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess this means there is no consensus among admins so it's good that policy regarding DS is currently being discussed elsewhere. Maybe it will bring some clarity here. Thanks, again, Callanecc! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Protection of templates

Just wonder why you are protecting templates which hasnt been vandalized. You edit summary links to Wikipedia:High-risk templates which says "If fully protected, so that they can only be edited by administrators, or template-protected, so that they can only be edited by administrators and template editors, these templates should be changed only after consensus for the change has been established on the template's talk page." Christian75 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christian, templates which are considered to be high risk (in the case of my protections because they have a very large number of transclusions are generally either semi or template protected to protect against the risk of vandalism or people accidentally breaking the template. This is one of the few times that the protection policy allows admins to protect pages preemptively, but it does prevent normal vandalism or trolling from going live on a huge number of pages. For example on a template which is semi protected and have 7000 transclusions, all a vandal would need to do is to get autoconfirmed then vandalise a number of templates, which means that we could have tens of thousands of pages showing that vandalism (or libel or image vandalism). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New SPI

Hi, it turns out there was a reason for the apparent confusion I received from the functionaries mailing list. After filing an SPI, I was told that there are no suppressed edits in the Ralph Abraham article, something which I did not anticipate in the least. Deepak Chopra sent out a tweet complaining about death threats in the Abraham article, and the responses he received all acknowledged the vandalism. But it happened four days prior to Chopra's tweet and was reverted in seconds by ClueBot. Chopra linked to the current article, not a past revision. There were at least two screenshots showing the vandalism, one being of the Google Knowledge Graph info. It's all very peculiar (perhaps there is even a software bug somewhere), but all that is a separate issue at this point.

In any case, the original goal of the SPI -- to checkuser the suppressed edit -- is not longer applicable. The revdeleted (not suppressed) edits from 71.119.92.56 are in fact the threats in question, and the SPI has shifted to a regular IP sockpuppeting case. I don't know where this puts the current state of the SPI; since you handled the last SPI you might want to look at this one (which is an updated version of my original email). Very recently one of Askahrc's edits exposing one of his IP addresses was suppressed, but you have a copy of my email which mentions the IP. vzaak 03:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at what's been presented in the SPI, I'm not convinced enough that there is a link between Askahrc and the IP as coincidence is not really enough to block. If it were an account there might be enough evidence to warrant CU, but since it's only an IP I can't be sure enough that they are the same. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, well the SPI was never meant to be a behavior-based analysis of an IP. (Though there's not only the timing and location coincidence, but also motivation and prior behavior, among other things -- not that it really matters now.)

The technical puzzle this leaves behind is interesting. I've made a post about it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#A_perplexing_puzzle. I don't see how vandalism that was immediately reverted by ClueBot could make its way to Google Knowledge Graph. One explanation would be that Special:Oversight is bugged and that there really are suppressed edits, but I have no explanation that explains all the pieces of the puzzle. vzaak 05:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Or it just happened that the moment the page was duplicated was before ClueBot reverted the vandalism which is infinitely more likely as Oversighters don't use Special:Oversight anymore but rather Special:Delete revision and click the hide from admins box. Plus it's not very likely that the IP will have posted exactly the same edit twice and the Oversighter would have completely missed that there were two sets of edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I mentioned the possibility of extraordinarily unlucky timing in the pump post, but it's just amazing that that could happen, and then, extra extraordinarily, remain for four days. Articles are vandalized often, so one would expect Google to update accordingly; it seems unlikely that we are hitting a patient-zero bug of this sort. The theory also doesn't jive with other data, like Chopra and others apparently behaving as if the vandalism is really there, and one person taking a snapshot of the lower portion of an old diff while seemingly passing it off as the latest version. Whenever I weigh the possibilities I come back to suppressed diffs, an explanation which seems to require less conspiracy than others. But I need to think about it more. vzaak 07:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The pump thread came up with the answer -- a caching glitch, T48014. That's the only thing that jives with all the evidence here. vzaak 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

CVU

I was wondering if You would be so kind as to teach me how to clean up vandalism. I just completed the Wikipedia adventure, and would like to learn how to fix the mess immature people make of all our lovely articles. Thanks, The Dracommunist (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello The Dracommunist, I'm quite busy at the moment so I probably don't have time to take on a student. It would be better if you get some more experience with articles before starting on reverting vandalism. Perhaps by doing some copy editing. Please feel free to let me know if you have any concerns for problems. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeat sock

If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sportsgamaniacre. It involves the same IP/user combo that you previously blocked for socking in an earlier report in March. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm not sure if you saw my comment regarding the IP you added, it was minutes before you closed the case. 187.252.103.226‎‎ has a pretty long history editing basketball articles, with little overlap in articles or style of editing until today's nationality-related changes. I think it's very likely a coincidence. This IP commented in a discussion on the nationality topic before the block, and has some history of even-keeled discussion, whereas Sportsgamaniacre is more combative. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The one discussion link above was from 187.252.106.177, not 187.252.103.226‎‎. Striking, but still enough differences I believe.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked them based on that, I still think that coincidence is a bit too unlikely given what they were doing. But I think just keeping an eye on them in the future will be worthwhile. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've was recently right on one sock in another case that was initially rejected a couple years ago. I suppose it would balance it for me to be wrong here. I hope not, more for that person's sake as oppose to my silly record. Have a good one.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with listing an SPI

Hello Callanecc, another user created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javier93h, I fixed it up for them, but can't see a way to list it in the open cases. Can you help? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to do that, a bot organises that list and keeps it up to date. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI move

Hi Callanecc! First and foremost, a huge thank-you for all of the work you do clerking at SPI, it is very much appreciated. Could you revisit this move? The oldest account is actually Eli786 which was created in 2011. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Don't know how I missed that one. Moved and retagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably missed it because there are only a handful of clerks (maybe even a half a handful?) doing all the work at SPI right now. Thanks for updating the master. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rakesh_biswas01/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rakesh_biswas01/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2. I left you a message at the page. I suppose it doesn't really matter since Rakesh biswas01 and all their socks are blocked, but there was a sock that didn't get added before the case was closed. Don't have the experience to tell if it matters any or not. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged it as a suspected sock as it's already been blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mint Press IP

Can you please have a look at:

• 74.95.142.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isabellabean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mint Press News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

I am not sure if the IP's most recent edit timing is merely unfortunate when compared with Isabellabean's recent topic ban, but comparing this, this, this, and this is making it harder for me believe they are not the same editor. Thoughts? I am thinking 3 month semi-protection might address the problem. Please let me know if you want me to take it to a noticeboard; since you just looked at the situation I thought you might be able to handle it more efficiently. VQuakr (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether they are the same or a different user. I've semi'd the page for a couple months to see if that makes a difference, if it's not enough I'll semi it for longer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

CAT:File mover listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CAT:File mover. Since you had some involvement with the CAT:File mover redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention

Hi User:Callanecc,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Soorejmg has sent this message to six different administrators. See User talk:Soorejmg#Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc,

The accused user Lihaas asked another Amdinistrator JamesBWatson to close the SockPuppet INvestigation and he immediately did that. This is supisicios. Please have a look. As the page Indian general election, 2014 is a high profile page in India now due to ongoing election, there is very high chance of paid editing in WIkipedia by political parties in a wide manner to make page look advantage for them. I would request your kind intervention in this case.

Excerpt of request made by the accesed Lihas to JamesBWatson in ( RequestMadeHere )- "User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)"

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with James's assessment, the editing histories and behaviours are different enough that the evidence wouldn't justify a checkuser or a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:S.Salman89

On 2 March 2014 you permanently blocked the above user for abusing multiple accounts but it seems he's still at it. I see from his contributions that among the articles he edited were Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) and others related to litigation for compensation. In recent days, there have been edits to CICA which I have reverted, attempting to provide an external link to a firm of lawyers or to use that firm's website as a reference. The diffs are here by Salamuddin_Shaikh and here by JohnMilson. You will notice that these are linking to same lawyers' firm as S.Salman89' edit on 31 January 2014. It seems to me that there is a concerted effort by a group of users, or the same user under various aliases, to exploit Wikipedia for their own commercial ends through free advertising posing as independent authority. It should be noted that the name of their firm, Criminal Injury Claims, is deliberately chosen to resemble as closely as possible Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, presumably to catch out unwary Google users. (There is absolutely no need to use a lawyer to apply to the Authority.) Sorry to bother you with this, but seeing as you dealt with him before I thought you might be interested to pursue this. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

IP to be blocked

Please block 195.89.201.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He was blocked for 1 week + 2 weeks + 59 days in the past and is most probably controlled by the same person as 92.238.171.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that you blocked a few hours ago. 86.127.25.60 (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

AR Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Sorry to bug you with this, but you've been very informed on many of these cases so I wanted to keep you in the loop. The Cap'n (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My AE issue

Callanecc, I see that you are involved in my AE issue. Please do note that I completely understand why I was blocked for 3RR. That was my mistake. Instead of reverting I should have notified moderators about various users' collective violation of WP:GAME in regards to the khojaly article. I was goaded into making reverts to edit against POV in article, but that was the wrong direction to take. (I wasn't sure if I was allowed to write this in the AE itself since I'm not a third-party editors, so I wrote it here).--Urartu TH (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are definitely allowed to comment there in the section titled "Statement by Urartu TH". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mazo1964

Hi there. I'm pretty sure IP 193.92.255.90 is Mazo1964 and I've tagged the IP talk page accordingly. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Mexico Map

Dear Callanecc, Well after this [20], you can see that the user Aquintero is not really seeking a consensus nor providing a talk page to discuss the quality of the map on talk page, the user is really misinterpreting things, the user says that I'm wanting to promote "a different map" that I created in SVG format, but I'm using his/her own source in PNG format and as you know a SVG map should be used in place of PNG map (raster image) when superior. The user Aquintero probably does not want the map has a better quality in spite of having the same content as his/her map. I also told him/her to created his/her own SVG map if he/she doesn't want the SVG that I created. Wikimedia SVG image support. --Cihuaweb (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Biewer terrier

the biewer terrier is not a separate breed from the Yorkie but a pied bald gene the BTCA of america never succeed in getting the biewer Yorkshire terrier changed to biewer terrier DNA testing by the american kennel club as proven the Yorkshire terrier is carrying a pied bald gene.the German biewer yorkie clubs do not associate them self with the btca of america the BTCA OF AMERICA IS AN INDEPENDENT CLUB NOT A KENNEL CLUB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biewer1976 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits, there are two things which you need to keep in mind. You aren't permitted to edit war and instead need to discuss the changes you'd like to make after they have been reverted, before changing the page back to your version. You should also support your changes with verifiable, reliable, third party sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I never received an email from you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's strange. I used the email link in the left-hand side menu. Maybe you have it directed to a different email account? Here I thought you just didn't want to give me an answer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My user page

Hello. My user page and my talk page have recently been vandalized by a non-registered user. If there anything I can do or you could do for me so it does not happen in the future, please let me know. Thank you.Dr Marmilade (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr Marmilade, I can semi protect your user page if you'd like but there isn't much I can do about your talk page unfortunately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will care for my talk page but could you semi-protect my User page please? Thank You. Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi'd your user page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You. Dr Marmilade (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AGNEZ MO

I would like to change the title of her page to all caps AGNEZ MO, as that is how it is spelled on her official website, Twitter and Facebook pages. The photo of her is also outdated from 2009, and I would like to change that to a more recent photo of her and Timbaland. I don't mean to break any rules or cause disruption; I would just like to update her page to align with her current brand and image. Can you help? Thank you! Tina Smithers 23:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinasmithers (talk • contribs)

Hi Tina, you need to open a move discussion on the article's talk page following the instructions here. As long as you have reliable sources to support the changes you want to make and you reference them correctly there shouldn't be too much of a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Callanecc. FYI, User:Womenpass was Vgleer along with this and this. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The reverts on Badman (EP), Himchan, Jong Up & First Sensibility look like a continuation of Ryanjay1996? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. But Ryanjay is very low-key. He never attacks. Plus one of the traits of Vgleer is opportunistic symbiosis with existing socks. He's done it before. Sometimes he adopts usernames to imitate existing socks, unrelated to him. I could come up with diffs if you wish. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No prob, I'll take your word for it. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion by Lockean One

[21] — goethean 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi,

I noticed that I was not approved for autopatrol due solely to not meeting the 50 article minimum. I've been on Wikipedia for over 8 years, I have restore multiple articles and have been active on DRV. In the recent months I've created twelve 12 articles. Per WP:IAR I feel that is a bit unfair. I find this highly discouraging and was hope you could revisit. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If I'd made it to the start of the year without finding one which had a maintenance tag (or would qualify for one) I would have IARed and granted the right. However on 1 March you created Leif Sylvester Petersen, which, even though it is transwikied could still have had the references included. For example, just Google searching his name and using Google Translate I found [22] and [23] in the top 10. However I recognise where you're coming from so I'll say this, create a few more good, valid articles with no problems (which will take you up to 40 I believe) and I'll give you the autopatrolled right. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I transwikied that from the Danish wiki and do not consider it an article I created. Anyways, I've added citations to resolve that issue. I've also noted in the talk page hoping for an editor with Danish background to provide additional citations as I am unclear as to what Danish sources are considered RS. I have an extensive history adding sources to tagged articles Jack Frost Ski Resort, Shawnee Mountain Ski Area, Camelback Mountain Resort, Plums in chocolate, Chocolate covered cherry, Nestopia, and others. I hope my efforts at improving Wikipedia are noticed and see autopatrol as a token of appreciation. The need to create a few more articles seems somewhat redundant and was hoping this resolves any issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the software considers that you did create the article so it would be marked as patrolled and it's quite conceivable that others wouldn't look at it. Whilst I definitely do appreciate your efforts I'm still on the fence as to whether I should grant it, which is why I wanted to see some more recent article creations. Let me think about it overnight and I'll have a more detailed look at some articles you've created and let you know tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good if I do not have time to add citations and always make a note or an announcement on project pages calling other editors to do so. Thanks for giving it a second look. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just read the Rfp

Rfp for autopatrolled. I've got your point, but may I consider that you are involved here? When it comes to me about getting autopatrolled right. OccultZone (Talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You said that I will need to create more articles(5-10), and they should not require any moves. I will probably submit the request again. But if I've created them in matter of days, I will just inform you here. That will be Ok? OccultZone (Talk) 14:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you created them and left them for at least a few days. To clarify, I was referring to moves as the major issue, but the general principle of valid articles which don't need any work still stands. As it was only in an administrative capacity I'm not involved. And generally an admin is allowed to reverse their own decision without being considered involved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

spi

Did I list this correct? Don't see it as open on the SPI list so wasn't sure if I fudged it. Thanks. --Львівське (говорити) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, it just takes the bot to update the list of current cases. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)