User talk:Callanecc

Kwamikagami

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh...

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

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

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

• Windows66

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

• Previous sockpuppet:

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock

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

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

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

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

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

doe B

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

do you recall ..

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

Deleted page

Hi,

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

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

Your recent closure at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

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

AWB

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

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

Shiba Inu and The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius

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

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

Ahir edit warring

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

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

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

#117960

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ted Nugent

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

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Callanecc:

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

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1100 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

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

rangeblock

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

Comparison of file hosting services

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

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

Richard Horowitz Composer

Hello Callanec,

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

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

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

Endorse

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

Shivani Financial' AFD

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Internacional20

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

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

List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Kafkasmurat>

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

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

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

WP:ANI

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

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

Tom Butler

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

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

Anjem Choudary Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block Evasion

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

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

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

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

Account creator right

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

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

Block Evasion - HistorNE

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

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

Please comment on Talk:2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea. 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. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)