User talk:Callanecc/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Thanks for fixing the template

Thanks for fixing the protection template on Biotic component. That was silly of me. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for protecting it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about Arbitration

Hi, I had a question about the arbitration process (Ebionites3, specifically). I was looking through all of the related pages pertaining to the case and I don't see any of the statements that were provided for the Request. Are they filed away and won't be considered? I guess I'm asking whether I have to duplicate my statement for the Evidence page. Thanks for any answers you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, additional statements are archived on the main case talk page. So no you don't need to do a duplicate of your statement on the evidence page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Callanecc, I don't know how I missed seeing that! Thanks for pointing it out.

The only evidence I have to present is about civility concerns but I don't know whether that will be a focus of this arbitration as there are plenty of people weighing in on matters of content. I'll check the evidence page regularly to see how things are progressing. If conduct won't be an issue than I think the statement I made is all I'll have to say. Thanks again....I appreciate getting the notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out that the Committee can't rule on content disputes, that is not inside it's community authorised remit. What it can an does aim to do is figure out what is stopping a dispute from being resolved (the "break the back" of the dispute) whether that we unclear policy or users making that difficult or impossible, sometimes through incivility or personal attacks or a battleground mentality, which separately or together mean that other people don't want to participate in discussions (making no comment on what is happening in this case). So depending on what the evidence you are talking about relates to it might be very helpful when the Committee comes to decide what is causing the problems and what can be done to fix them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebionites 3 evidence length

Callanecc, I received a bot warning this morning that I was over my limit for words in my submission. I'm aware of the 1000 word and 100 diff limits on evidence. My intention was to lay out all the evidence in a coherent manner and then trim it back to the essentials rather than try to do it piecemeal. For example, I'm aligning all the arguments and evidence to make sure they match up with specific principles. Then I'm going to strip out the principles and use more concise wording in the subtitles to communicate them. If it's ok with you, I would like some leeway to lay my arguments out in full and then trim back to the 1000 word, 100 diff limit by October 1. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

See Carcharoth's comments on evidence talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebionites 3 restriction of scope to the prior 12 months

Callanecc, the restriction placed on submission of evidence by the Committee to limit evidence to the last 12 months (September 2012 and later) is being violated. Ignocrates (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also advise us whether such summary, preemptory, jumps to conclusions as I believe the above is can also be potentially presented to the committee as evidence of misconduct. The matter being challenged has been discussed on the evidence talk page, and I at least, being the person who posted it, believe that it is directly relevant, as it provides evidence to counter some of the allegations of the above editor. And, yes, I wonder whether it is possible to present to the committee such prejudicial, judgmental comments as the above as possibly being worthy of the consideration of the committee on their own. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ignocrates, see Carcharoth's comments on evidence talk page. @John Carter, no comment on whether you should present it or not. I don't believe there are any restrictions other than the specifics for this case (see Carcharoth's comments on evidence talk page as well) and Wikipedia policy more generally (eg outing), so yes you could use that as an example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edited following Carcharoth's clarification on the evidence talk page, original version. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC). 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.

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (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) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add me as an involved party to Ebionites 3 arbcom case

Hello, after I added "evidence" to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/ [1],(it says "Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute"), I noticed that before that it says "Anyone who did not make a statement at the request stage and wishes to add evidence is asked to first provide a statement (on the evidence talk page) or ask the case clerk to add them as a party to the case" and I think you are the case clerk, so please add me as involved, I guess. Sorry I did not do that first, all these procedures are somewhat new to me. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I think Smeat75 is requesting that s/he be added as an uninvolved party to the case. I don't mean to speak for anyone, but that is an important distinction when possible sanctions start to be handed out! Ignocrates (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see it just says "ask to add them as a party", not as an "involved party", so I do mean "uninvolved", not "involved". Actually I don't care whether I am a party or not, I just wanted to add my perspective on the evidence page and am trying to comply with these rather detailed procedures.Smeat75 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smeat75, generally parties are only added if they are involved in the dispute. I'll check with the drafting arbitrator on Monday as to whether it's ok that an uninvolved party be added. In the meantime I'm happy for you to leave the evidence where it is. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just confirming here that Smeat75 should be added to the case pages, but this is more to ensure they are notified at later stages of the case rather than a need to say whether they are involved or not - that usually only becomes clear once the evidence has been reviewed. It does help to know whether someone thinks they are involved in the issues at hand or not, but that distinction is not tremendously important at this stage. Anyone presenting evidence can potentially have their conduct examined as well (this helps discourage frivolous addition of evidence), but for now just maintaining a list of those participating in the case is what I'm after here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I added a little to my evidence [2] but the "word count" has not changed. I thought maybe it would automatically update, but it has not done so. I am sure I have not gone over 500 words but the total it is showing now is not correct, I don't think. Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot which updates evidence length is currently offline, that's why it hasn't been updated. As long as it isn't too far over it should be ok. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Yes, I am willing to talk on the page about it, however it appears he has already broken the 3RR rule. I won't revert again so I don't violate it. He seemed a little hostile with refering to the page as his "own", and the threat to "report my IP address", whatever that means? 173.171.83.140 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The page has been protected now to encourage discussion between the two of you. So I suggest you do so on the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:MOS-TW

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:MOS-TW. 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, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ebionites 3 evidence

If I can be added on the same terms as Smeat75 was, sure. My intent was simply to add information so the Arbs aren't left in a he-said/he-said dilemma, & end up resolving the matter by flipping a coin to determine who is in the wrong & proceeding accordingly. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

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 1100 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is 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. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

CVUA

I have gotten a rather comprehensive CVUA tasks on my sandbox. You can take a look at it. But it is still not complete. Thanks. Jianhui67 Talk 07:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Check out my sandbox at User:Jianhui67/sandbox. Jianhui67 Talk 07:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the message in the midst of the reverting. It looks good so far especially the bit at the end to fix anything which comes up from the final exam. I'll have another look when you finish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not done yet. I may use pictures for Twinkle. Should I add a 'reviewer' section to introduce WP:Reviewing? Jianhui67 Talk 08:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have moved it to User:Jianhui67/CVUA/Tasks. Jianhui67 Talk 13:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you, but the syllabus (on WP:CVUA) may be a helpful tool as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I post my page to the WP:CVUA's trainers methods? I think mine look okay, thanks to you, ItsZippy, Arctic Kangaroo, Mediran and Ross Hill and some parts on my own. Jianhui67 Talk 14:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe under Trainers' methods so that others can see the link to it but it doesn't clog up the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Update page?

In light of NW's resign should the page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision be updated to reflect the impacts from it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Talk:Scalp advance.
Message added 15:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 15:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The technical term is hairline lowering. If you look at the abstracts for presentation at the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgeons (who I consider the authority on hair-related medical procedures), the procedure is referred to as "Hairline Lowering". "Scalp Advance" is not used in the medical literature

http://www.ishrs.org/sites/default/files/users/user3/program_ishrs-2013asm-sf_web_06-29-13.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.196.65 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's been sorted out now, my only issues is that you were moving by copy and pasting which breaks the article's history and possibly Wikipedia's legal attribution requirements. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

StephenHawking (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you lent me a hand

Hi, i see that you are a long time administrator on wikipedia, so i wonder if you can help me out there, the thing is that an user called Andygrump (an user with a large block log [3], with various of thses being personal attacks) opened a case soliciting a ban on me, however, the problem is that he solicites it for something that i wasn't doing. To further complicate the things his opening paragraph in the case exhagerates the things (and as i said before, states that i am doing things that i wasn't doing) so users read it and believe that i am an user of the worst kind (various though not all of these users have blocks too or have been involved on heathed disputes before), therefore comment and then i have to defend myself again and again linking the diffs that prove that i wasn't doing what Andythegrump says that i was doing and that prevents the case in question from being archived. I wonder if you could help me out and close the case as a false alarm, so i can concentrate on other things to do on wiki, I mean, i'm not even wanting to discuss the file in question again. I also wonder if there are sanctions for users who open cases whitout even following the original discussion or that make false accusations on ANI.

• Link to the case [4]

• Link to one of the diffs on which i use links that prove (again) that i wasn't doing what Andythegrump says [5]

Thank you in advance. Czixhc (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you previously edited under another username? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And after you answer that question, can you tell me what you think happened and what you have learnt from it? That is, I saw on your talk page that you "accepted the no", why did it take so long for you to accept it and what have you learnt from that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, No, i haven't edited under another username, and i've learned that what the comunity says has more weight than most sources, It took me so long to understand it because that, i used to believe that sources were more important (my mistake), now i really just want to lay this issue down and i'd be thankful if you gave me a hand there. Czixhc (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does the "community" believe that those sources aren't reliable/shouldn't be used? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, is kind of a very long story, but in short, the comunity believes that the sources aren't reliable because aren't directly related to the issue in question but the original maker of the map, i was basing myself on the policy for self published sources that states that if some person haves work in the relevant field then that person self published work might be reliable, but i was told that the policy didn't worked that way. It's all here: [6] I really have no problem with the consensus, i just want to finish this off. Czixhc (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if you actually understand the reason the consensus was not the way you thought it should have been and what you will do in the future if the same thing happens. Because if you don't have the 'right' answer to both then a topic ban could be the best way to go about preventing this from coming up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I already understood and accepted my mistake, don't worry about it. I have to log out for now, i really wish i had more time but i will be back tomorrow if you still need to ask me something. Czixhc (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm back to discuss my problem, and i also have some news: My proposal for a strict regulation of ANI fillings have spawned interest of other users: [7]. Czixhc (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. 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, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move evidence by My very best wishes to Workshop talk page

The evidence added today by User:My very best wishes is outside the scope of the case as presently defined by the Arbs. However, it provides potentially useful background information that may be relevant in Workshop discussions. Therefore, assuming the scope remains unchanged, I propose that it be moved to the talk page of the Workshop. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I brought this up so that, seeing the evidence was added after Oct 1 and out of scope, you didn't just remove it. Imo, it should be retained somewhere. Ignocrates (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to the evidence talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A request

Hi Callanecc,

Would you allow me to place some new evidence to the Evidence page? This is all very recent and directly relevant to the case, i.e. Ignocrates vs. JC, not the diffs I previously wanted to include. I thought this might be helpful for Arbs. Other than that, I do not really care. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you please make a request on the Evidence talk page (so there is a central record) and I'll check with the drafting Arbitrator. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I placed my Evidence on the talk page [8]. If drafting arbitrator believes it would be useful for other arbitrators, please move it to the Evidence page. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing bit?

In your close here you appear to have left out a bit of this sentence: "The majority of the support arguments focused on the need to have experienced users checking to ensure that draft articles." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, fixed now. Thank you! :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• A good close. Consensus is consensus. As proposer, I didn't vote on it myself, but I left plenty of comments that demonstrated where my opinion and above all, experience, lay. It would have been interesting to mention in the close that a large number of the opposers completely misunderstood what was a very clear, succinct proposal: there was no suggestion that the permission should be a MediaWiki based software tweak. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I could probably have rolled something like that in with "participants were not asked any further...", but I didn't really think that it was a big enough issue on its own to mention directly. I suppose I have sort of touched on it with that same sentence. Though, because participants weren't asked about that, the few (from my reading) direct comments about it being a MediaWiki tweak weren't overly relevant to the closure (but the other things they mentioned were). I'm not sure if that made sense, or said what I wanted it to, but I hope tiredness didn't get the better of me too much. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Review

I am currently a assistant at Ross Hill's CVUA. This is my first time marking a progress test at User:Ross Hill/CVUA/Padraig Singal#'''Unit 7:'''Progress Test, so can you help me to review it to see if there are many mistakes. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The only ones I disagree with are:

• Scenario 1 dot point 4 - I would have yellow ticked or even crossed, because who is at fault has no bearing on 3RR so they didn't answer that question. Plus the IP shouldn't be reported to ANI, 1) they haven't been given 4 warnings yet and 2) that's exactly what AIV is for so reporting to ANI is just clogging it up.
• Scenario 3, dot point 5 - I would have yellow ticked (or maybe cross), the user should absolutely not be taken to RFCN and need not be warned as it is a clear and blatant violation of the username policy and there is advertising involved. The user would probably be hard blocked with {{spamusernameblock}}.

Hope that helps, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I know about that. I wanted to yellow tick the last one at first. If I were to mark even stricter, he could have failed. So I just gave him the mark. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, when I looked at his answers at first, I already saw quite a number of errors. Not just those you pointed lut, but scenario 2 dot point 3 should be reverted with Twinkle AGF button. I told him the rollback blue button can be used in all situations. And this is the progress test, not the final exam. The final exam is harder than the progress test. I don't want anyone to fail the progress test. If I marked even stricter, he could only get 9.5/18. So I decided to give him the mark and mark his progress test more leniently. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'mark' on the progress test doesn't mean much. The only thing you use it for is to work out where more work is needed. So there is no "fail" mark per se. In a sense anything except 100% is a "fail" mark because you will go back and reteach what they didn't understand. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

From his progress test scenario 3, he only got 2/5, and that's an obviously failing mark. I think he will need to work more on CSD and username issues. He made quite a number of careless mistakes, which can be avoided. I'm kind of worried about how he will perform in his final exam because of the mark he got in his progress test. I believe this can all be sorted out during his monitoring period. I think he will also have to work on warning templates as that section carries a lot of percentage in the final exam.Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 02:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. 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) 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

edits please read

i listened to KOME radio and my edit was correct Chevy Chase was never on KOME radio as a D.J. , however Dennis Erectus was even though his name is crude ... i erased the info on Beautiful People because the band "beautiful people" have not recorded since " if the 60's were the 90's" therefore making the statement on the beautiful people page incorrect i only make changes to help Wikipedia

thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.230.210 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source to support the change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ACC access

Hi Callanecc,

Could I have my ACC Interface account re-enabled please? I was working overseas, hence my inactivity, but I'm back now and would like to help out once again. Pol430 talk to me 17:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, make sure you review the guide and procedures before you begin handling requests as a lot as changed. Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Template editor

Hi, I saw that you just received the protected template editor userright. Are there any full protected templates that you'd like to edit? Let me know and I'll downgrade the protection so you can do so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

CVUA

Hey Callanecc, after so many delays I finished my CVUA questions. Mind checking it when you can? No rush. :) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep I should (hopefully) get it it over the weekend. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) And no worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

AFCA

If you have a moment, I'd like your opinion on this. It's a clone as you'll see but It's been looked over already and copyedited by Technical 13 and if you and he, and perhaps Theonesean think it's ready to go I'll think about moving it. I've also pinged Theopolisme. It has a talk page for any comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, I've had a look done a bit of copyediting and made some comments on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Block of 119.160.119.85

I certainly could amend the period of the block if we have any reason to think that this is a shared IP and likely to affect anyone else - but what about all the other sockpuppets in the same case? Why this particular one? Deb (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the only indef'd one I saw. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought most of them were. I'll double-check. Thanks for pointing it out. Deb (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like it's mostly the named ones that are indefinitely blocked, while some of the suspsected IPs aren't blocked at all. Not really sure what's happening, but I changed it to a month as you suggested. Deb (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In a case like this, it's pretty much based on the discretion of the admin reviewing the case, they need to be convinced that there is enough behavioural evidence that one the IP is the sockmaster and two that it's worth blocking them. These instructions will probably provide more info, particularly this section. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for CVUA Training

Hello Callanecc, I've been a user of Wikipedia for around 8 months now and have been using tools such as Lupin's anti-vandal tool and Twinkle to revert vandalism with no problems. I saw you are a CVUA trainer in my time zone - would I be able to be your student? I'd love to learn more about what I can do to revert vandalism. Thanks in advance :) ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 01:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. Is there any particular area you'd like training in? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Apparantley going through the CVUA allows you to gain Rollback rights so reverting vandalism can be easier to do. So should we stick to the syllabus? Specifically, I think I'd like to go over Critical Thinking and Knowledge and Understanding of concepts - if you look at my contribs I've made over 150 reverts and messages to vandals so I'm pretty good on that part. When and where do we start? :) ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 08:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The requirements of the syllabus are woven through my training rather than being taught explicitly. Have a look at User:Callanecc/CVUA/Tasks. You can request rollback rights any time you'd like, CVUA training just give you some more experience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Also might be a good idea to finish your exams (if you haven't already) so you can concentrate on the CVUA training. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have one more left. Tell you what, I will look over your Tasks link and I'll get back to you on Monday afternoon, which is when my last exam finishes. ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 11:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, good luck. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

Hi, Callanecc,
I just have a question about Ebionites Workshop phase. The case has been quiet for the past few days and I was wondering if the arbitrators were discussing the case or if they were waiting for more comments for involved parties. Thanks for any information you can provide! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Decision is posted. Never mind! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

edits

I reverted the edits made in defiance of the tea party ban; since your responses would not have made sense without them, I removed the whole section. [9]NE Ent 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Some stuff

Hi Callanecc. Hope you don't mind me stalking your students' academy page. I am very bored as it is now school holidays for me. And congratulate me for getting 2nd in class with an overall percentage of 80%. The answer of the additional question you put on Numbermaniac's academy page about protection is too obvious, and is definitely a giveaway question, as the answer is already obvious on your brief description about the topic. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, except those questions are diagnostic, I want them to go and find the right information and tell me. I'll find out as the programme goes on whether they actually understand or not. At this stage I just want them to show that they know where to find the info and have a basic knowledge. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:South America television navigational boxes

Category:South America television navigational boxes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NSH002 (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Mdann52's talk page.
Message added 09:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you can co-nominate him, then that would be better. We need a more experienced editor to do so. See that thread for the reason. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ACC

Hi there sorry to bother you it does seem like things changed quit a bit, i did read the guidelines under WP:ACCRIGHT but i still seem a bit confused in this process.Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 12:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The account creator user right is a completely different thing to the request an account process (also referred to as ACC or account creation process). The user right allows you to override certain limits (such as the rate limit allowing only 6 accounts created per IP address in a 24 hour period, and overriding the title blacklist and spoofing checks). The ACC tool (on which you have an account) is the interface which allows people to request an account to be created for them, you don't need the user right to use the ACC tool, it only provides some extra functions. If you want to become active in the process again, and with the backlog we have at the moment, I encourage you to do so. There are extra things you'll need to do, see here and on your talk page for details. Let me know if you have any other questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerkship trainee

Hi, Callanecc, @Nuclear Warfare: suggested in this discussion that I become an arbitration clerk. Following the instructions at WP:AC/C (Appointments section), I wondered if you'd be willing to recommend my becoming a trainee. No matter what NW said, feel free to say no. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I'll take it to the clerks' mailing list for comment. Thanks for your interest! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see Bbb23 around a lot. One of the admins who is an example to all of us. I think he would make an excellent Arbcom clerk. Perhaps he should even run for the committee. Heck of a time consuming job though.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Kudpung.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFC/A

Now moved to project space. Needs populating with trainers ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFC/A

I fully realise that you are extremely busy on Wikipedia, but I believe you're very good at this sort of thing, so don't hesitate to add yourself. I don't expect there to be a stampede for training, but it would be nice to have some available clueful instructors :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and done. Good nagging :P. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ping pong

A ping directed me to a different thread that led me to believe I was being accused of starting that arbcom case involving Eric. But it seems it was because I posted below an Arb Com post in a different thread. I did it again when I was directed to a thread that said I was too closely associated with Eric to begin that arb com filing. I didn't of course but do find it odd to see images I find offensive on that case. Tell me...what does Kekuanaoa have to do with that case. I take that personally.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really follow what you just said. I moved your comment from replying to AGK in the Arbitrator's section to your own section and left a comment in the clerks's section (which I'm guessing is why you were pinged). Who/what is Kekuanaoa? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. You seem to have simply pinged me and it was directed to the wrong location and it is just a coincidence that Kekuanaoa is a distant relative in my family. Probably my great, great, great uncle. I must be reading more into this than needed. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably a couple more greats need to be added to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_Reviewer_permission

I believe you erred in your closure, not in your judgement of consensus per-se, but in the way you communicated it. Your closure framed the previous RfC as if it was in favor of a technical userright, when in reality, it was repeated multiple times that the implementation of control over AfC reviewers was completely up in the air, and that the RfC was just a judgement of general sentiment.

A technical right is impossible, as there is no way to stop people from moving articles from AfC to main space short of removing their ability to move pages. And even if you did that, they could still copy/paste move, so basically, you'd have to strip them back down to not-autoconfirmed levels of access. Access to scripts can't be controlled either, since they could always load a script into their custom JS that preforms AfC actions.

So we are left with only one option, social enforcement with some sort of black or white list. Further discussion needs to be framed around that, not around criteria for a requestable userright. Gigs (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how I framed the previous RfC. I thought I made it reasonably clear that the closure of the RfC had nothing to do with what the 'permission' would/could look like because there was not discussion in the RfC I closed regarding that. If you think there is a simply way I could make that clearer in the closure statement I'll consider it, but I'd rather not change it 3 weeks (and however many people that equates to) after it was closed. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gigs, I believe Callanecc made a perfectly appropriate, balanced, and detailed closure - as proposer but with no vested interest in the outcome, I would have told him if I thought it failed on any points. The follow up RfC has been going for some time already at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. This RfC is to decide on the permission criteria, and not to discuss the implementation. The technicalities of the implementation can only be discussed when the community has decided on the the permission threshold. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's impossible though Kudpung, we can't talk about criteria without talking about implementation, and it seems that a lot of the comments on there have treated it as if it can be implemented as a userright like rollbacker, because of the way this issue has been presented by you and the way the previous RfC was closed by Callanecc.

I have serious doubts that many of the editors making criteria proposals truly understand that this can't be implemented as a technical right, and that unless we are willing to block someone who is properly processing AfCs that doesn't meet the criteria, the criteria really have no teeth on a technical level. You've tried to abstract this issue too much, and I think you've done everyone a disservice by trying to sweep the implementation realities under the rug.

There does seem to be consensus to do "something", but unless we present the issue in context of the possible implementations we can actually do, I don't think you've gauged a true consensus on criteria. This is why I've said I think the currently running RfC is invalid, because I believe that editors have been mislead about (or at a minimum, have not considered) what is technically possible and what isn't. Gigs (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is about something I neither said nor implied either on this current RfC or its precursor: that this is to be a traditional, MedWiki based user right. I've said time and time again on both discussions that it would be highly unlikely, and Ironholds, a Foundation employee, has also made it blatantly clear too. I don't agree with every thing he says in the in the slightest, but on this he's right nevertheless. The interesting thing at the discussion I had with Eric Möller and Brandon Harris in Hong Kong was that local technical solutions are possible. Fragments of many discussions at and around AfC also demonstrate that it is possible. That's why I still feel strongly that instead of putting the cart before the horse, we should see what criteria the community comes up with, and then talk about a way of fitting a control system to them. The main issue which everyone is missing is that until we can force all reviewers onto some kind of list, there is no way of effectively knowing who is reviewing poorly. DGG's comment is the most poignant in the whole discussion. When an éminence grise of his calibre makes a statement like that it ought to be a knee jerk and get everyone back on track.

The problem is that most of the participants in that discussion don't really know what goes on at AfC and have rarely or never worked there. They just see the problems of hat collectors and admins with an axe to grind - all the usual whining on the kind of RfC where they an take a dig at our systems, and when someone comes up with an initiative to do something about it they basically just jeer from the sidelines, just the way they did at our monumental efforts at WP:RFA2011. The one initiative I mainly led that was highly successful, got shouted down by the Foundation, for reasons which I later fully understood, but it was a massive community consensus.

The RfC is doing its intended job as a think tank, and most of the ideas (that concern the actual threshold) are constructive if not all practical. There will soon be a straw poll to decide on the actual consensus, just in the way that most normal debates outside Wikipedia have the discussion first, and then vote at the end. It's a tradition at Wikipedia though that we generally do things arse-about-face. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the RfC would have been much more successful if you had stated up front that we aren't really talking about a MediaWiki userright, but more of a socially enforced whitelist. I see now it wasn't your intent to lead people to that conclusion, but many people, including myself, did wind up believing that was the primary focus of the discussion, and I think many of the proposed criteria reflect that.

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I think it's not possible to have a good discussion about the criteria without at least a basic context of how it will be implemented. An example is the edit count type criteria that several have proposed. If this were a technical userright, then that's no problem. But if it's a socially enforced white list, it raises the question about what we do about someone who doesn't meet that criteria that is doing good work reviewing AfCs, while violating our criteria for becoming an AfC reviewer. Are we really going to yell at them for doing a good job? Gigs (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can yell at them for doing good work, but like at NPP we can certainly ask them to stop until they have been on a course. And if they still don't stop (which they usually do), they get incremental warnings for disruption until the inevitable happens. I've never gone so far as blocking anyone though for persistently wrong tagging, but I've got a lot of them to understand that NPP is probably not where they can best help Wikipedia. I personally think a social control based on a set of criteria is the way to go, but if we don't get them all to register on the reviewer list (which we actually have), then it's a lot more difficult to catch them than it is to weed out clueless NPPers. At least with NPP we have admins reviewing the CSDs before final deletion, but on the other hand there are those that should be deleted that get patrolled and not tagged. Sting in the tail. At the end of the day, why do we have technical user rights for Rollbacker and PC Reviewer when we haven't got any at all for the far more demanding tasks of AfC and NPP? Anyway, I think it's time we gave Callanecc his talk page back ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know,any more than Kudpung, how this can best be implemented. I have several workflows in mind, and several technical ways of accomplishing them. I have no practical knowledge of the capabilities of WP programming, and there are sure to be additional ones also. I do know that Special:Logs provides a log of all page moves, which can be filtered to see page moves into article space--this can even be done manually in a spreadsheet & I have done that from time to time--I am very much at home in spreadsheets. I am also aware of several possible ways to avoid even this, some of which I can think of no practical means of catching except by chance as we do now. I know from experience that we can not catch everything in a single-step process, and there is a practical limit to how many levels of review are feasible. What we need to do now is to get started making improvements. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

David, I believe that if we can get a set of criteria decided upon, the next step should be to get that 'Draft' namespace created. That would open up a host of technical possibilities that are currently denied by working on a talk page as we currently do. When that is done, I had envisaged proposing a Curation Toolbar style fly-out, but having looked at the code, it may need a MedWiki implementation, and that might be denied by the Foundation. I'm not sure about the Twinkle code, which works on JavaScript, and which could be adapted as a special stand-alone solution possibly independent of MedWiki, such as, I believe, AWB, Huggle, Stiki, Igloo, etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request related to Arbcom

There is an edit request related to the Adam Bishop case request which may or may not be reasonable to add to the project page. Since you have acted as clerk there today and clerks may "summarily remove or refactor inappropriate material", I was hoping you could make a call. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like NE Ent took care of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved parties to Ebionites 3

Callanecc, I noticed you added Smeat75 as an uninvolved party to the main page of the Ebionites 3 case but not Llywrch and Liz, who also presented evidence. Was that merely an oversight? Ignocrates (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Nishidani also participated as well. Have the arbitrators returned now to weigh in on this case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, they are still deliberating. I was reviewing the opening statements and I noticed that Smeat75 was seemingly singled out as an uninvolved participant. Imo, s/he should be removed or the other parties added to fix that discrepancy before the case closes. Ignocrates (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add them to that section because they both made a statement before the case was accepted (which was one of the criteria required to submit evidence). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying why it was done that way. Ignocrates (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

You informed me that a clarification request was archived. I think this was premature. The answer given is wrong, because it contradicts policy, as Jclemens pointed out. It is also not an answer to the question, if I created an article if I created 80% of the content, and if not who else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a consensus among the Arb's that they felt, under the conditions presented in the request those editors would not be permitted to add infoboxes. Maybe WP:PROXYING was the wrong link to provide, but it is the closed I could think of. Regarding the other question when there isn't a consensus to change (etc) a decision the decision isn't changed (etc). When I was told the request could be closed I couldn't see an agreement among the Arbs about what they defined an article you created as so I didn't comment on it. Sorry I can't be much more help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the arbs can't be helped, quite amusing, - the decision doesn't have to be changed if it can be understood in a way that is not absurd, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another clarication ;-)

Hey, Callanecc,
I have another question about ARBCOM. Does it ever occur that once a proposal in a proposed decision has met its vote quota, that arbitrators who haven't weighed in yet just give it a pass? I'm curious, of course, about the Ebionites case and several arbitrators haven't made their opinions known. I was just wondering if cases were kept open for as long as it took for all arbitrators to vote or are they closed once there is a majority vote and so not all active, unrecused arbitrators participate.

I've read over quite a few cases but I never compared the voting tallies against the number of arbitrators who were active at the time. I intend this just to be a question of process, not a complaint. I was reading one case that began in early December that was open until the last day in February so I realize that this case is moving through the process at a normal pace. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It can both ways depending on the drafting Arb and the Committee's current workload. Generally they try to encourage all of the Arb's to vote and have their say however sometimes this just doesn't happen and they vote to close the case without all of the Arbs having voted on all of the proposed items. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That was my impression. It looks like there is a move to close the case even though several arbitrators haven't voted yet. Thanks for the clarification, Callanecc. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like everything is all closed up and finished. Thank you for your hard work over the past three months! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, although I think the vast majority of the credit has to go to Carcharoth, this was the easiest and best run case I've seen so far. Credit also to Bbb23, the first case close is always the hardest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC). 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.

Please check your email. Thanks. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 06:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

JianhuiMobile ^talk 12:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Close at the pump.

I'm not at all certain that close was reasonable. I think it is something like 11 to 19 (less than 65%) which isn't generally "strong consensus", let alone consensus for a change of this magnitude. And there was no announcement anywhere (including WP:DEL) about this proposal. 19 people at the pump really shouldn't be the basis for changing policy in such a large way--it should really be advertised at WP:CENT. I'd ask that you revert and start a much better advertised RfC. Also, you didn't sign the close. Hobit (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No particular criticism of your summary, but I have to concur with Hobit here. I would agree that discussions at The Pump about major policy changes are generally only precursors to a major RfC, one proposal only, and on a sub page of the area it concerns such as, for example Wikipedia:Deletion policy/RFC to modify AfD closures. Within the rules of canvassing, all users who have participated in a previous related discussion (and some others) can be notified of the new discussion provided the notification is neutral, and made manually. Hard work, but that's the way it goes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

For the second proposal I had it as closer to 22 supporting (if you factor in those who had caveats and those who supported a proposal like this in other section but didn't 'vote' in the 2nd section) and around 9 opposing (a lot of the opposes in other section were opposing closing down PROD). But I'm happy to reverse it for another RFC to take place (I've done that on the relevant policy/guideline, etc places I changed so that the process isn't used yet, and left a comment at the end of my close statement), I wasn't aware that any change to policy can't just take place at VPP, just with notices to the relevant places (which I agree in this case only the first proposal was specifically mentioned, however the 2nd one only come around a day after the first). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a rule per se, but it's usually the way it's done for major policy changes (and this is one) to ensure the discussion is in an appropriate place, well published, and gets well subscribed. I don't know if you can start the new RfC yourself as closer of the first one, perhaps someone can chime in here, but as I was not involved at all in that discussion perhaps, time permitting, I can help draft the proposal statement - but I don't want to be logged as the proposer, I've got too many other discussions going at the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry my note was rude--I didn't realize it was until re-reading it this morning. I shouldn't be editing that late apparently... Hobit (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. 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, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RFA

Do you want to go for RFA? --Tito☸Dutta 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my concern is the relatively low number of edits to mainspace (both the pie chart and new articles). What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• That will not be an issue. Today morning I somehow saw the post at RFPP where you posted "Already protected by Mark Arsten", Why are you spending time in NACs, be an admin. Kudpung or I may nominate. You have solid background at ACC. --Tito☸Dutta 04:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Only reason I put that there is because I requested the protection around the same time Mark protected it. Thanks for the suggestion and confidence. I'll wait and see what Kudpung (and others?) have to say then go from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I co-nominate you? I have a good nomination statement in my computer word document. I already had plans to nominate you since August. I believe your RfA would pass. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it'll pass. --Tito☸Dutta 05:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

JianhuiMobile ^talk 11:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you go to your email now, you would have received 3 emails. 2 of the emails were sent at the same time and aee identical. That was because my phone had a sudden glitch. I'm sorry about that. JianhuiMobile ^talk 13:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

Hey, Callanecc,

I was looking at some administrative templates and came across some templates, like Template:Sanctions, that are intended to be placed on the Talk Pages of topics that are under General Sanctions (as listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions#General sanctions). But when I checked a few article Talk Pages for these subjects I either found no warning at all or a warning saying that Discretionary Sanctions are in effect. And the templates weren't consistent and in a few of them, the links or formatting of the warning isn't correct at all.

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between general and discretionary sanctions but I am all for warning Editors ahead of time that a subject is under extra scrutiny. I'd like to replace the templates on all articles under GS with a standardized warning template. But I realize that maybe this isn't a task for a regular Editor and maybe it should be left to an AC Clerk or Admin.

If you're curious, what led me to look into this was because a number of Editors were finding their Talk Pages with templates warning them they were on the verge of violating DS but when I looked into it, it turns out there is a standardized template for this warning and it must be given by an Admin, rather than an Editor one is in a dispute with. I think there is a lack of clarity about GS/DS, when they apply, what lines must not be crossed, what penalties are involved. I'm of a mind that forewarning all participants is better than untangling disputes later.

So, let me know if I can help with this or if I should just move on to some other Wikignoming activity. There are plenty of other things to do! Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User warnings (with {{uw-sanctions}}) need not be given by an administrator (see the templates' documentation for more details). However giving it to someone one is in dispute with may be considered disruptive and pointy.

The main problem with non-admins tagging talk pages with a notice saying discretionary sanctions are active for that page is the "broadly construed" part of the authorisation. It's up to uninvolved admins to decide which pages (etc) are subject to the sanctions as they are the ones who have to decide whether the page is covered by the sanctions. However for pages which are blatantly covered then there shouldn't be a problem with you adding them.

Regarding the template which is used {{Discretionary sanctions}} and {{Article discretionary sanctions}} (which is being depreciated for the first one) are used for articles in which the Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions. And {{sanctions}} is used on articles which don't have ArbCom imposed discretionary sanctions.

General sanctions refers to any article level sanction imposed on an article (including discretionary sanctions, probation or 1RR). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll forego trying to standardize article talk page warnings. But there are 783 article pages that fall under Category:Wikipedia general sanctions...I was willing to do the work but instead I'll just let you know if I happen to see any without a article talk page warning.

As for the template that advises that only uninvolved Admins can give Editors warnings about discretionary sanctions (and the warnings must be logged in), I was going by the information in this template: Template:AE sanction. But I know that there are rules and then there is practice and they aren't always the same thing and the rules on one page of WP might be inconsistent with the guidelines on a different page that are about the same subject. I guess this is one of those instances.

I really appreciate your patience and taking the time to provide a full response. It's much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be a problem adding it to page which are obviously covered by snactions. However interpreting "broadly construed" is the territory of uninvolved admins.

Template:AE sanction can only be used by uninvolved admins because only they can sanction someone. Template:Uw-sanctions can be used by any (preferably uninvolved) user and the warning logged on the appropriate case page. So the rules are consistent, the warning and the sanction are two different things. Disclaimer: this is only for standard discretionary sanctions, on occasion the Committee or community authorise sanctions which only allow uninvolved admins to give warnings, so you need ot make sure you check the wording.

No worries, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I thought the sanction template was basically the same as a warning. I know that a warning must be given before sanctions are imposed. I was a little upset seeing an involved Editor posting those Template:Uw-sanctions warnings on the talk pages of every Editor on the opposite side of a dispute. That seemed like intimidation to me. It's also a problem because it's not clear exactly what behavior crosses the line and warrants sanctions (if it is not egregious) but that's a question for ARBCOM.

Regarding placing article talk page template warning, I was just going to work with the articles that are categorized in Category:Wikipedia general sanctions, I wasn't going to make any personal judgments on what other articles might fall under GS/DS. As it is, there are over 700 articles! That would keep me busy. It's not something that needs to be done right now but if I get an okay from you, I could do it over a weekend some time in the future. I understand if you need to float the idea by others involved in ARBCOM...I just believe in the power of warnings, I guess. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope they are different things. WP:AC/DS#Guidance is really the only definitions of what behaviour may lead to sanctions. However that's the way it supposed to work. It gives admins the power to act as they see fit to prevent disruption etc.

That should be fine. Just make sure, before you change the template, that you check the following:

1. That the sanctions imposed are ArbCom imposed standard discretionary sanctions.
2. The remedy/amendment/motion is still in effect - that it wasn't superseded, had an expiry date etc.
3. That there isn't a more specific warning template for that area, see Category:Standardised Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates and Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates.
4. And the order all of the templates go in on talk pages is here.

Hopefully that will help and not sound restrictive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals. 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, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

You typed at MOS:IDENTITY:

...unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.

Can you give an example of such a subject?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the article for example. If Chelsea Manning stated a preference to be referred to as male during the first 10 years of life then this overrides the previous clause stating that the same pronoun (etc) be used whenever referring to them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. 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) 00:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Dionysius ... followed Paul and believed

I think I just figured it out. This guy appears to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev. If you decide to file for an SPI paper trail there's already one open for him: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ararat arev. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for your kind messages! I am new here but I think I am getting the hang of this.

Best regards, Nexus000 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's on...

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Callanecc Yunshui 雲‍水 09:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

100% destined to pass even on 3 December 2013. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Sharma

Harrias ^talk 15:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit. 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) 00:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC/A

Yo Callanecc! I wonder if you can accept me as your first student in the AFC/A. I would want to be a AFC reviewer. I'm not sure about some the things listed in WP:AFC/A, like notability. I got screwed 3 times by notability. 3 of my created articles got deleted in the past due to notability. I do know how to find copyvios, spam and promotional articles. I am very familiar in those kind of counter-vandalism stuff, like good faith and all those (I work in CVUA as an instructor). I would like to start reviewing AFC, but not sure where to start. I have only a little knowledge of AFC. Would you guide me through in AFC/A? Thanks. I have way over 500 mainspace edits. I believe your job would be small here because I have a big grasp of counter-vandalism knowledge. This can also show people your talent, hey even nice during your RfA. JianhuiMobile ^talk 13:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first step is to read the WP:GNG and WP:SNGs. It's also a good idea to have a good idea of when it'd be appropriate to tag a new article with {{db-a7}}, PROD it for notability concerns, take it to AFD or tag with with {{notability}}. WP:42 is also something which, in the beginning, is very helpful to understand and know when to apply.

However, it's probably better to wait until we see what the requirements are for reviewers. But in the meantime I'm happy to give advice if you want to have a look at some of the submissions. There are plenty there which don't meet the requirements of a myriad of other policies and so could be declined because of reasons even before notability needs to be considered. My suggestion would be that you just don't accept any. If you think I notability check is all that is holding it back then let me know and I'll have a look (though it'd probably be easier if you came to me with a few so I can talk about the differences in establishing between them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I definitely know what is WP:42 and when to tag db-a7. A7 comes in when that article totally don't claim notability and has no significance. WP:42 is about what sources which are applicable to put. Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. For AFD, I have only little experience in that. I have never ask for an article to be deleted in AFD or tag an article with notability isues because I am not very sure about that. Lots of new articles just look the same. I have been in NPP since July. For AFC, I am blur. JianhuiMobile ^talk 14:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth getting some experience at AFD before trying AFC, because that's the standard people expect of AFCs moved into mainspace. Read through the notability guidelines above, then find a few AFDs which have been nominated for notability concerns and read the comments of those voting to keep. This is probably the best way to find out about the application of notability.

In terms of the theory of notability (I should have said read WP:N more broadly not just the GNG) I think the WP:GNG does the best job of summing up what notability is and how it should be applied. But the best way to understand is to see it at action at AFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So in simpler words, determining whether an article is notable is through looking at how well it is sourced? JianhuiMobile ^talk 14:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources (like news articles, assuming the person didn't write them). So if you were to write an article about a business owner but all of the sources were from that person's business or things they've written, that doesn't meet the GNG but would (depending on what they were referencing) be verifiable. The SNG for people complicates it a bit, the various discussions in Mentoz86's RFA are pretty good at explaining the relationship between the GNG and SNGs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And those are about secondary sources? I know an article cannot rely just on primary sources. JianhuiMobile ^talk 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep independent=third party=secondary source. Notability is one of the (big) reasons why. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you again create another page called User:Callanecc/AFCA/Jianhui67 where we again work through tasks about AFD, notability and AFC. I can try to find some articles and tag them with AFD and then let you see whether it is okay or not? I know there is no AFCA tasks page. JianhuiMobile ^talk 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I probably will at some point in the next 24-48 hours, but have a go at the tasks I've suggested above and we can discuss them then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably tomorrow. It is already nighttime here. I bet it is 1.48am for you. Sorry to keep you up so late in the night. JianhuiMobile ^talk 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What is RPL anyways? JianhuiMobile ^talk 03:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Callanecc/AFCA/Jianhui67 Callanecc, please answer my question on the page I moved all the conversation to. JianhuiMobile ^talk 04:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Minturn Peck DYK

Hey there. Is there a reason why you chose the original prompt, rather than the Alt, for Samuel Minturn Peck? I much preferred the Alt myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep (but I might just walk away slowly with my tail between my legs), I looked at it, was going to go with the alt, then did the other 5 and forgot to grab the alt when it came to copying it over to the prep area. But using it now. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. No prob. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

New email

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.

JianhuiMobile ^talk 03:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have sent another email to you yesterday. Have you received it? JianhuiMobile ^talk 04:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Another one... JianhuiMobile ^talk 04:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Again. JianhuiMobile ^talk 10:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 13:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 13:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

publication of the page

hi please publish that page, he is a public figure in today's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytanveer (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The article you wrote doesn't meet our requirements because it looked like advertising and wasn't neutral. Also, the same or similar content has been deleted in a discussion so it can't be put back unilaterally. I you want there to be an article on the person I suggest you review this page then use the Article wizard which will guide you through the process. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

please remove that all text which you feel is like advertising. hope you will guide me and publish Tanveer Alam page,

Hi, if you are feeling that the page of Tanveer Alam looking like a page, please that details which you fell is like advertising, or suggest me to write it. i can write it again if u suggest me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytanveer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion (as I said above) is to read through WP:Your first article, then use the WP:Article wizard to help guide you through the process and requirements of an article on Wikipedia. Once you've created a draft, using the article wizard, let me know and I'll have a look for you. Also make sure that you sign your posts on discussion pages (mainly talk pages) by ending your post with four tildes (~~~~). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alec Lazenby

DYKUpdateBot (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor interaction tool

I have moved it to [10]. Please update the relevant templates. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:SPI report already done (not by me), any others you can think of. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Early congatulations

I'll be asleep when your RFA closes tomorrow morning (leastways I hope I'll be asleep), so I'm going to get in early and be the first to congratulate you on your imminent mop-hood now. I doubt you'll need any help getting to grips with the tools, but if you do, you know where to ask. See you for a cold one in the admin lounge tomorrow! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Callanecc/Template/ACCadmin

Hi there. The "administrator" link in that template seems to link to a section of WP:ACCG that no longer exists. Could you have a look, please? Cheers, It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Callanecc (alt) (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A bro I'd like to share coffee with.

Thank you for the quick reply time to my notice on the Admin whatever noticeboard for vandalism x3 I forgot what it's called. Anyways thanks for a quick reply time. I was actually kind of stalking your RfA and I was going to +Suport you but I think you have to have so many namespace edits before you can vote on RfAs? Do proper reverts count as namespace edits? NDKilla 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for the coffee. As far as I'm aware the only requirement to vote on an RFA is to have an account. But you need to make sure that you are experienced enough to be able to properly assess whether the candidate would be a good admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well.. Thanks. I don't know if it was a personal request by one of the canidates on their RfA only, but I saw somewhere 15 or 150 mainspace edits or something.. Anyways, Cya around and GL with the adminship. First admin action? Didn't you just protect some page? Idk I got an email about a change to one of the request pages I was watching. NDKilla 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

150 mainspace edits is the requirement for the Arbitration Committee elections, that could be what you're thinking of. I blocked three accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it might have been that. Idk. Thanks :DD Time to get working on my essay. Wikipedia has stolen my life. @_@ NDKilla 04:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc! I see that you haven't been given any appropriate clothing for your new job yet; never mind, here's a t-shirt. :D Congrautlations on your successful request for adminship! :) Acalamari 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DS review

Please can you explain why you reverted my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? As far as I can tell the review has not been completed and is still open for comment? Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted myself, sorry about that, I have absolutely no idea how I managed that. Sorry again. I am however going to remove the rollback link from my watchlist just in case it was that. Sorry, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, everybody makes mistakes. One apology would have been plenty though ;) Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So you like the mop, then?

Looks as though you've hit the ground running... Leave something for the rest of us to do! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I do, finally being able to do some proper cleaning up is quite helpful. Hey, I have to make up for all of those "it's about time" comments. But you are very welcome to the A7s. :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do when it has special abilities which fascinated you to try them all in a day. JianhuiMobile ^talk 12:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If I'd known you planned on clearing the entire admin backlog in a single day, I'd have nominated you years ago. A7s; gee, thanks... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were Callanecc, I would have did that as well. Normal thing... Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 13:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Today might be my last day here. I may leave Wikipedia for a while. For my AFCA course,I will get back to you when I am back. Thanks. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Try this coffee. You'll feel well. After all this moping on English Wikipedia floor you'll like it! Guaranteed! Ha ha. Anyway a big huge and big to the power infinite congrats for a successful RfA and of course becoming an admin. Hope you like your new rights. PS: Don't forget to drink it. it's still hot. If you need any sugar or milk then add them. Pratyya (Hello!) 14:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea that I would like to share with you!

Being an admin is going to be hard. Good luck. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the perfect solution. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

You declined to take action against Spyonrunce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the grounds that the account "has only received a level 2 warning and last edit was a few hours ago".[11] You should note that this account is a sock of the serial Runtshit vandal, who has received countless hundred warnings over the past several years. Further, the sort of abusive edits made by this editor should have attracted an immediate indefinite block irrespective of this history. RolandR (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok my mistake, thanks for the message I'll know that one for the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andrevan@ 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with your new mop! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations. I honestly can't remember why I have your user talk watch listed but looking at the names on your supports, it must be because you are a similar editor to those that support you! And them is some good support!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yea boi! -- Great job. I was happy but not surprised by the tidal wave of supporters. Enjoy your mop! Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 02:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• CONGRATULATIONS!!! You deserved it!!! Good luck in your future Wikipedia endeavours! JianhuiMobile ^talk 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations Another enwp admin at acc Mlpearc (open channel) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congrats, this is well deserved. Let me know if you have any questions I can help with. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations and Best WishesYou appear to destined for much greater things in the Project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Did you notice that Dennis Brown even came back momentarily to support your candidacy? Now that was impressive right there.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support everyone! First admin action done, hopefully I didn't break anything. @Mark Miller: I did indeed, I feel quite honoured. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And G-Double-O-D-J-O-B Good job! Good job! Three cheers for Callanecc! Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Heartiest congrats! I'm sorry to be late to the party again, I was out of town for 24 hours. I notice nobody has given you the T-shirt yet. if they don't, let me know, I have several sizes in stock, and a whole bag of useful scripts for adminsin my user:Kudpung/vector.js page that you are welcome to plunder ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you!! Hopefully I haven't incurred anyone's wrath yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Give it time... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just noticed your very first deletions in the log. Congratulations and hope you continue deleting lots of unencyclopedic content! jni (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations! And thanks to you for being an amazing nominee :) Now I am the only clerk left that is not an administrator xD — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations on finally becoming a sysop! Good luck with the mop! Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats and best wishes, with my thanks for your service to the 'pedia. Jusdafax 10:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• CONGRATS!!! Bobherry talk 03:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Stopping by to add my congratulations. Well done! :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

One more favour

I have one more favour to ask you before I leave. Can you help me to view my deleted CSD nominations before I created my CSD log and tell me the criteria I tagged by email? Thanks. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you did the things I told you to do? Don't know why I can't stop visiting Wikipedia. I am very blue now. JianhuiMobile ^talk 04:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you come to IRC now? I have stuff to talk to you. JianhuiMobile ^talk 06:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Hi, thanks for your comment on Sheldrake talk. I am trying to avoid reverts and edit wars, but this edit just makes a mockery of the article/wikipedia. [12] It's very difficult to do any work in such conditions. Grateful for any advice you have on how to proceed without edit warring. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Barley, my suggestion on page which is that contentious and unstable is to suggest all changes (apart from really uncontroversial ones, like fixing unambiguous typos) on the talk page (or put your changes on a subpage so people can see how it will look) to gain consensus before making the edit to the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

?

About the protection thing. I was trying to comment how I agreed the page Human Gene thingy should be protected and started a conflict though. Ive been on Wikipedia for nearly 3 years. Also what exactly does "Preemptively mean? (I'm 15.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobherry (talk • contribs) 02:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your requests for Rockefeller Center and Rudolph... Pre-emptively means that we don't protect articles because vandalism will or might happen only in response to vandalism. Your Rockefeller Center request for example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Bobherry talk 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars

Also how do you get a barnstar? I've been on for nearly 3 years as I said and haven't gotten any.Bobherry talk 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Barnstar - other editors give them to you, but they don't mean anything other than that social aspect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Bobherry talk 03:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for fast replies on your talk page! Bobherry talk 03:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Congrats on becoming an Admin! Bobherry talk 03:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse

Thanks for reverting this and finally closing down that time-sink. Sad, but inevitable.

I think I shall start a "testimonials received" section on my user page. I have had worse than that, and no doubt you will, though after four years I am still waiting hopefully to be called a rouge admin. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I got a tad nervous when I saw that page title, thought I'd stuffed something up in my first few days.

No worries. Related question, has the user sent you any emails after I removed talk page access? Unfortunately that's something which comes with the territory of being an Arb Clerk and as you said an admin, but you never know I might be lucky. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no emails. He kept referring to "emails" in his messages, but I think he meant ordinary WP messages. If I do get abusive ones, I would have no qualms in turning off his email access. Someone, probably Beeblebrox, has written an essay on the lines of "Cries of ADMIN ABUSE are usually correct - an admin is being abused." JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The email they sent me wasn't anything worse than what they put on their talk page so I just ignored it. But had they sent the same thing to you I would have removed access. But looks like they've figured out the message. Sounds like quite an accurate comment, you get a different perspective once you are an admin and have been on the receiving end (quite mild though it is). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Can You Help Sorting Out This Mess?

Hello. I need your help in regards to Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013.

1. Currently the following pages exist in relation to the topic: Manolis Kapelonis Μανώλης Καπελώνης Γιώργος Φουντούλης Giorgos Fountoulis Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office Murder of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos FountoulisMurder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office. As you understand a mess has been created, over an article that is facing notability problems. Is there a way to clean up all or some of the mess?
2. It has been suggested that the article be merged with Terrorism in Greece. Th incidence is also covered in Golden Dawn (political party). The only editors that defended the article not being merged were 2 entirely new editors (1 was the creator of the article) with no previous contributions. The creator of the article has yet to provide any evidence for the notability of the page. Could you take a look at Talk:Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013 and post your opinion as well, and if you conclude that a consensus can be claimed, to take action? This article has made a mess the last few days, with vandalism taking place at Murder of Pavlos Fyssas as well. --Tco03displays (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. Given the contentious nature of the article I think it would be better for a merge discussion to take and the two AFDs come to their end after the requisite seven days. Once that has been done we (uninvolved users, in this case probably admins) can close and implement the discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Then this is still within the timeframe of discussion. I'll check it in 5-6 days. --Tco03displays (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Make sure you follow the instructions here as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Also please note the WP:PROD does not apply to redirects. These need to be discussed via a WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations...

....on your successful RfA! Good luck out there. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 13:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, thank you HMSSolent! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Hi Callanec - just wanted to let you know that this diff is not a block evasion - User: 130.88.164.18 is his own man (or woman).Legionarius (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

All About She

Hi there! I was just contemplating whether or not to start creating an All About She article through my userspace when I noticed that someone had recently created the page and you'd deleted it. Would you be able to restore the original contents to a new userspace e.g. User:Djunbalanced/All_About_She? Their new single entered the UK midweeks at #11 which has already guaranteed it notability. I'll wait until Sunday's chart before going ahead with a new article but in the mean time I'd really appreciate seeing the old one! Regards, DJUnBalanced (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My warning

Hi, I was recently warned here about my edits to Rupert Sheldrake. [13] I don't think the warning is fair - as it comes from an editor on the article who is inserting his own content contrary to multiple sources listed on the talk page. I would appreciate a second opinion, since previously you seemed to suggest the edits I am now being warned for were partially responsible for you not locking the article. [14] Barleybannocks (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not a bad idea to get consensus, because your edits are some of the more controversial ones to the page. The only reason I mentioned your edits is because they were evidence of at least someone moving on from the POV template war. As it's an arbitration enforcement warning there is nothing I can do regarding the warning itself. However I would suggest that gaining consensus over any edit isn't necessarily a bad idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I just want to check. A single administrators can force their own non-consensus version into an article by banning/threatening to ban anyone who changes it. That is, the administrator edits their version in, threatens the ban, refuses to agree on talk to any change no matter how well sourced and how unsourced their version is, and then the ban threat means nobody can ever revert. Is that really the way things are supposed to be?

And, also just so I know, could you tell me which of my edits you feel were controversial?Barleybannocks (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Guy hasn't edited the article enough to be considered WP:INVOLVED, although I didn't look too deeply into the page history. A consensus is yet to form on the talk page, and the best way to do that is to talk rather than edit, and there have been a few times I've been tempted to protect to force that. Whether one person refuses to agree or not doesn't matter if the consensus is against them. Also just clarifying, it's a bit different in this case because Guy is undertaking this action as arbitration enforcement under discretionary sanctions which no single admin can overrule, but you can still appeal a sanction or warning to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. In terms of which edits are controversial, that's a question best asked to Guy on his talk page (in a friendly way). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have asked him, about five times. He refused to answer and threatened to ban me if I asked again. Is this kind of bullying standard on Wikipedia? Barleybannocks (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. As I said I think your edits on the talk page more more contentious then those to the article. I just did a search of your username on the talk page and almost every editor was disagreeing or trying to convince you of something else, not just Guy. So from that side I can certainly see where he is coming from. You need to bear in mind that when (all/most) other editors disagree with you, you need to comply with the consensus which they have come to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, my edits on the talk page have primarily been all about citing numerous high quality sources in support of a very brief statement in the introduction stating a widely known fact which is suppressed on Wikipedia for some reason but appears almost everywhere else Sheldrake is discussed (ie, he has a small degree of scientific support/interest in his work). I can certainly see how citing sources disrupts people's abilities to retain a very biased BLP. It is also, however, very much in line with the Wiki's core policies even if antagonistic to the aims of some editors. Anyway, thanks for your message to Guy, I doubt it will make a blind bit of difference.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not "suppressed" it's just not there because nobody's found the right way of saying it. You are over-reacting, something which is (to labour the point) one of the things that distinguishes problematic from harmless single-purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI help

Thanks for sorting out my post on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99/Archive. Despite being an admin for over two years now, I never really got around to doing much at WP:SPI, so it's greatly appreciated. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

re: Reviewer user right

Hello there!

Thanks so much for your granted and nice to meet you. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, use it well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Kleargear

Would it be possible to lock Kleargear such that only signed-in editors (in other words not IP editors) can edit this article? There seems to be a lot of disruption from (probably) a single editor using multiple IPs... =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get enough time to thoroughly review the situation. But it looks like you need to try and discuss the situation with the IP user, relating to WP:UNDUE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Richwales did what I was intending to do. This is content dispute related to WP:UNDUE and needs to be resolved through discussion not reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you assistance (and Callanecc as well), I think locking the article for a few weeks will result in cool heads. It's difficult to discuss things with editors who do not respond rationally. In principle, I agree entirely with the IP editor, but turning an article into an emotional litany of WP:UNDUE only serves to undermine the overall validity of the article, and indeed Wikipedia. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

living people
Thank you for quality articles on people, active in diplomacy (Dave Sharma) and international education (Alec Lazenby), for welcoming new users and articles, for teaching new vandal patrollers, for performing also minor admin tasks, for picking up ideas, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this Gerda, it means a lot. Especially as a new admin still finding my feet. Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no! (Hi Gerda :-)

  Beware, BEWARE, oh Callanecc -- lest ye be ensnared by the Notorious WikiCriminal Gerda! She purloined that wikiGem off the body of one of her infoboxen victims, no doubt! Assume bad faith, with utmost haste!

  (No infoboxen were harmed in the making of this humour. WMF is not responsible for any failure to roll on the floor laughing out loud. ArbCom disclaims all responsibility for content disputes. Please post all complaints, in triplicate, to three distinct talkpage sections at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, on three distinct days, between the hours of 9AM and 5PM UTC Monday through Friday. Use only blue or black pixels in your posts; no redlinks allowed.)   Officiously yours, 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

74, why didn't YOU report me, in triplicate? - Discuss Talk:A Boy was Born vs. A Boy Was Born when you get up from the floor, - big issue, the MoS is at stake, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

AGF: on one page of the infoboxes case it was mentioned exactly twice, and one of them was "AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

formally moderated discussion for 3 months, vs Quik-n-Informal™ Consensus-By-Callanecc's-PRNG-Chosen-Cabal for 3 weeks

Although the attempt by SilkTork was good, it "officially" took three months, and still ended up back at ArbCom.[15]

 (cur | prev) 08:53, 11 April 2013‎ SilkTork (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,427 bytes) (+15,427)‎ . . (creating)
 (cur | prev) 22:35, 3 July 2013‎ SilkTork (talk | contribs)‎ . . (242,513 bytes) (+1,328)‎ . . (Withdrawing) (undo)

Not trying to discourage you... but are you volunteering to be moderator for Sheldrake, much as SilkTork was the moderator for Tea Party movement? And was there any attempt to bring in uninvolved editors by Silktork (or other folks) for the Tea Party thing, or was it just all the same regulars in a new venue, plus the moderator trying to maintain order by topic-banning the egregiously-unruly? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there was an attempt but people got scared away from it. Not volunteering to moderate (although it will be somewhat required) I was thinking more of the format. But instead to duplicate the article on a subpage, and discuss each section on that page's talk page. I think the problem will be finding completely uninvolved editors who are willing to devote their time to it. Any ideas how to recruit them, because I can't be seen to select people? In any case I don't think it's going to work over the holidays, but in a couple of months it's something which is much more likely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are two ways. One way -- which I'm reasonably sure will *not* be acceptable to the FTN folks -- would be to send a neutrally-worded talkpage spam to every member of the WP:ASSIST and WP:RETENTION member-lists, asking for volunteers willing to devote 15 minutes (min) per day for the period from Monday 9th Dec through Fri 20th Dec to fix a WP:BATTLEGROUND before 2014 arrives. Exclude anybody who has ever edited the Sheldrake talkpage, the Sheldrake mainspace, the Chopra articles, or has posted at an FTN noticeboard in the past six months. First come first serve, we take the first dozen that show as our actives, and the next dozen that show as our backups. Then, we have twelve UTC-days, and we would need to cover about 2 or 3 mainspace-paragraphs per day, to get through the article completely. I would vote 3, which means, five minutes hard thought per editor per paragraph, plus we'll be able to revisit a handful of them that final weekend iff needed.

  However, all the folks that come from those groups -- myself, Liz, Lou Sander -- are now officially sheldrake-fanboi-material, at least to the woo-fighters on the sheldrake page.  :-)   Such folks see us as no better than eeeevvviiiilll sockpuppets like Tumbleman, anti-wikipedians, one and all. So, rather than spamming wp:assist and wp:retention, we can conceivably do a much broader sort of volunteer-gathering thing. We can use the API to get a list of the 29k active editors (their usernames). Then, we can create an exclusion-list... folks who have edited sheldrake, folks who have edited FTN, folks who have edited whatever-the-various-factions-are-threatened-by. We write a script that will populate the exclusion-lists (for instance the first exclusion-list of folks that have edited sheldrake mainspace is pulled from the edit-history of the page via the API). Then, we find how many folks remain. We get a computer-script to PRNG-randomly select 24 usernames off the list. Then, we follow the procedure above, and try to get 12 actives, and 12 backups. If after 24 hours we have not gotten enough folks, we tell the computer to pick another 24 names. And so on.

  One way, which was "suggested" at one point... and since then has actually occurred in practice, which is why Mangoe and JzG and BobRaynor and so on have appeared recently... was to get uninvolved editors *from* the FTN regulars.  :-)     So call that option#0, and consider it already implemented and working. Anyways, do you think that option#1 or option#2 can work? My goal is that *only* these somewhat-randomly-picked editors will be permitted to edit the subpage. Nobody on the sheldrake talkpage now will be able to make any changes, even to the subpage-talkpage. We can supply *sources* if we wish, and there can be the usual discussions on the *regular* sheldrake talkpage... whoever is the subpage-moderator will have to read both, unfortunately.  ;-)   Does this make any sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything which resembles soliciting editors from random talk page messages probably won't be very welcome. I was thinking perhaps a message on Template:CENT and maybe on the dispute resolution noticeboard, asking for some uninvolved editors to help work it out. On the talk page, I think a section for each section in the article on the subtalkpage, and within that (level 2) section, a subsection for people currently editing and a subsection for uninvolved editors. But as I've said I think it'd be better to wait for a month or two, plus to see where current discussions are going. The problem will be if we don't get enough volunteers, which is likely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There's doing what will be welcomed by all, and then, there's grasping at straws to avoid grudge-o-pedia. My suggestion was squarely in the latter category. Prolly too late for that, now, methinks. Your approach of using DRN is sound... but they are understaffed... and this is a *big* talkpage we are talking about here, in a discretionary-sanctions zone. Even if the DRN folks dropped everything, and zoomed over, it seems unlikely we could get half-a-dozen of them for a week, let alone two dozen for two weeks. As for CENT, that seems to be more policy-oriented. This,[16] right? For instance, the RfC on whether to allow anons to comment once WP:FLOW arrives (gag) is here, and attracted 43 people to !vote. Several of them commented twice, but in general they read the two paragraphs at the top, bang-voted in the category they wanted to win, and then left. Luckily btw, only 9 voted to perma-ban anons.

  We *could* do something like that, with an RfC for intro-para-one (in multiple variations for the various different folks involved)... but I doubt it would actually work in practice, too many closely-related variants. Doing it sentence-by-sentence (or even better sentence-pair-by-sentence-pair) would cut down on the dupes, and might be worth it. Once we've ironed out neutral tone for each sentence, paragraph by paragraph would be much easier. Sentence-pair by sentence-pair would take months... but it sounds like it will take months, no matter what. Is it too crazy to cdr down the list, line by line? And if so... how to we notify new folks? We could send out a "new" request for eyeballs, every 20 sentence-pairs, or something? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11

Just so you know, I think Rybec was using that as evidence for SPI, so I don't know if it should necessarily be deleted. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Undeleted, I was just following links from a PROD I'd deleted. Didn't see your previous delete and restore on the delete page. Thanks for the message, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also linked to it from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277. Thank you for restoring it. —rybec 10:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

(Not evading my wikibreak enforcer on my main account)

Help me to extend my wikibreak from 10 December to 11 December. Do not do anything else other than that. The Wikibreak Enforcer script is at my vector.js. Thanks. Also I sent you an email yesterday but you did not reply. So I might as well send here. JianhuiMobile ^talk 03:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not block evasion, because you're not blocked, and I've changed the date.

Replied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jianhui, this is 74 again, you may remember me from the Kudpung page, small world.  :-)   Be not disappointed that you could not empty the ocean with only a spoon! Your efforts are still appreciated, because every little bit helps. (That exact logic is why I'm donating my brain to science.... every little little bit helps. :)

  Enjoy your wikibreak, may you cultivate new interests and fascinating tales, plus enjoy old hobbies and relationships, so that you may return to the wikiverse renewed. Carpe diem. p.s. Callanecc, methinks the term 'evade' was speaking of a *self* enforced wikibreak-mechanism... Jianhui is parenthetically reminding themselves that, as long as they are only asking for a wikibreak-enforcer-tweak, it does not *really* count as evading their self-imposed enforcer-script.  :-)   I have the same mental conversation with myself, about various alarms/notifiers/similar, which is why I venture to guess at the explanation for Jianhui's phrasing. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Also relates to a conversation we had by email not to long ago. But yeah I know that's what he meant, I was just being intentionally dense cos of the email convo. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Callanecc,

I am anonymous contributor here. I have been complaining to the other admin about certain violations caused by one editor here. To cut it short here is the section of his talkpage where I made my complaints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rmhermen#Complaint . I am pretty much every IP in that section of the page. My request to you is if you could check more carefully violations and vandalism that certain editor is spreading on Balkan-related pages.

Thanks TaaTaa 212.178.228.36 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like pretty clear case of sockpuppetry and abuse of multiple IPs to me. Create an account and use it to do all of your editing rather than spreading it around multiple IPs and ranges. Once it's clear who you are and exactly which edits you are making. And that you aren't one of the many banned users in this area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you are all the same.........212.178.228.36 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. When we see a bunch of dynamic ranges all warring over the same content, which has also been the subject of long-term banned editors, it's pretty difficult to have any other reaction than to protect the articles from disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi Callanecc, could you please help me with this sockpuppet investigaton that I made yesterday? Blurred Lines 01:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there, the behavioural evidence doesn't really convince me because there isn't a distinctive editing style of the IPs/accounts and apart from the one reasonably high profile area they don't share any others. There is a reasonable likelihood that the IPs might be related to accounts, but without more edits I can't really be sure. But I have left to open for more experienced admins to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but didn't you noticed that after I reverted one of the IP addresses edit, that Savebriangriffin was created after that, then when someone else reverted that edit, Hi the man was created also in that time to revert it. Does any of that information I provided ring a bell? Blurred Lines 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, and might be worth adding to the report so that's is clearer for others when they review the case. I think it's probably pretty likely that they are the same user, but there isn't the evidence there that I'm comfortable blocking. Possibly because I don't have enough experience with the little things yet, but the regulars at SPI might see something I don't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me ask this, doesn't the Savebriangriffin username violate the username policy, as the user's name is popular (promotional to Brian's Death) to search on Google. Blurred Lines 01:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah it'd have to actually promote an organisation or company, see WP:CORPNAME. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Declined prod at Wargame: Red Dragon

Would you like to add references to this article? Otherwise I'll have to escalate this to AfD :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to go to AFD, I still have notability concerns, it's just that I was concerned it would be controversial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Did a small correction to your message

• here. Wifione ^Message 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)