User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 8

about List of letters used in Engineering
Hi Vanjagenije, As you know, there are a huge number of letters and symbols used by mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. There is a page called List of letters used in mathematics and science, as you mentioned. However, it doesn't include a significant number of engineering letters. As I open any textbook on mechanics of materials, electric machinery, etc, many of them start with a list of symbols used in that book. Sometimes, that list may be a couple pages long.

If someone is a mathematician or scientist, they don't need those symbols. If someone is an civil, electrical, or mechanical engineer, they do. The reason I started the page on engineering is because the letters I needed weren't on the list of science and mathematics. If you believe that we should include all of them on one article, we should probably change the title to 'List of letters used in science, mathematics and engineering'. However, I expect that it will then become very large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re34646 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! as you can see, I am familiar with the topic, since I'm a civil engineer. My opinion is that we don't need a separate article about letters used in engineering, because engineering is not separate from mathematics. Those two fields are highly connected, and most letters are used in both fields. So, if we would have two articles, there would be a huge overlap between the two. Actually, the article you wrote was more than 50% identical to the already existing article, List of letters used in mathematics and science. When we have two topics that overlap so much, it's always better to have one article, than two (see: WP:Overlap). And, it's not just my opinion. User:WilyD, who is an administrator, agreed with me, stating that List of Letters Used in Engineering should be a redirect to "List of letters used in mathematics and science" (diff). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't say it should be, only that if it's 100% duplicative it should be. If it ain't, a merger and/or renaming might be appropriate, I don't have an opinion. Wily D  14:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I interpreted your words wrongly. But, if you closely examine the page "List of Letters Used in Engineering" as posted by Re34646 (here), you'll see that there is not a single letter usage that is not already mentioned in "List of letters used in mathematics and science". So, there is actually an almost 100% duplication. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's 100% duplicated, redirection (and possibly retitling) of the article makes sense to me. The page is only 10kb, which is well below where it's recommended to split it. Wily D  14:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed earlier you were an engineer, and I'm sure you've got quite a few characters that you use that aren't in the mathematics and science list. I initially went through the mathematics and science list, copied it over, and removed things that were only mathematics or science.  I am expecting that when engineers see the engineering list, they would begin to add engineering characters relevant to their fields.


 * Initially, I only added S (for slip), and Omega for rpm. Just wanted to get the ball rolling.  However, as mentioned, other text books have pages of characters and symbols.  I wouldn't expect to enter all of these, but think engineers would add those which are relevant to them.


 * Examples from one of my shorter books on electric machines (most of them are at work), which would be relevant are B - magnetic flux density [not magnetic field, as shown in Mathematics and Science (M&S) list], H - magnetic field intensity. There is also the added question of whether these should include only single letters, or perhaps some two letter combinations, e.g. μr - relative magnetic permeability, or μ0 the magnetic permeability of free space.  As you are aware, there are a huge number of these two character symbols, and again, being able to look them up somewhere in Wikipedia could be helpful.  But seeing only that 'μ' means permeability (as in the M&S list) doesn't give as much understanding as defining what μr and μ0 mean.  Especially since there is also μa, μi and μd.


 * Additional electrical terms would be G - conductance, the symbol for permeance, which I don't know how to create in Wikipedia yet (looks like a fancy P), magnetic reluctance (looks like a fancy R), and others. If we allow two letter combinations, we can also add Pe, Ke, Bm, Ph and Kh.  Those are only symbols I ran into on the first five pages of chapter 1 of one of my text books.


 * In the mechanical world, we would also want to add symbols like ε - strain, but I'm not going into that detail in this response. Just trying to show that if we want a useful list, it's helpful for them to be separate from the math and science list.  It would probably be worthwhile to eliminate most or all of the mathematical terms in the engineering list, but I figured I could do that eventually, if others contribute to this list, and find it useful.


 * It would also be really helpful if we would begin to introduce SI units. This would work for the scientific and engineering terms, but I'm not sure if there are many units for mathematical symbols.


 * What I will do for now is add a few of these, to see if it becomes more useful, as an example. Thanks for your feedback.Re34646 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but those symbols you mention (like magnetic flux density, etc.) are actually also used in physics (ie. science), not just in engineering. I never said that those symbols should not be in Wikipedia, I just say that they should all be in the same article, so to avoid overlapping. Even if we add all the letters used in specialized engineering fields, the two lists would till overlap a lot. It is bad practice to start an article that does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and that to wait for other editors to "fix" it (that is basically what you said). The one who starts the article is responsible to write it in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Only after that may he expect other editors to come and improve it. If you are still sure that we need two article, you may restore the article you started, and we may start an WP:AFD discussion, and see what other editors have to say. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct, that some of the symbols I mentioned are used in physics. However, I do not believe that using S for slip (for electric machines or clutches) is a scientific term.  Nor are other things, like Nr for the number of teeth on a ring gear, or Ns for the number of teeth on a sun gear, nor the use of N for the number of turns of a winding in a specific electric machine.


 * However, I don't think it's going to be worth it to edit any of this, if it will be thrown away.  I find the 'List of letters used in mathematics and science' article to be of limited value, and was hoping to help create something for engineering that would have greater value.  If I begin to add letters used in Engineering to the list for mathematics and science, other editors like yourself will say, 'that is wrong, those aren't science or math terms'.  And so they will also be deleted.


 * In the future, I would encourage you to have discussion, before deletion. Your actions have discouraged me from contributing to Wikipedia.Re34646 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't have any reason to be discouraged. I am doing a new pages patrol, and I review newly created articles. But, I have no special authority here. My opinion is in no sense more important than your opinion. When a new page is substantially identical to an already existing page, it may be deleted without discussion according to WP:A10. This is called "speedy deletion", and discussion is not needed. But, still, I offered you to restore the article and to have a discussion, which you refused. You are free to move the article "List of letters used in mathematics and science" to a new title "List of letters used in mathematics, science and engineering" and to add engineering letters to the list. No one is going to remove your additions if you cite reliable sources to support the additions. I will be glad to help you in the process. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Vienna In Love article
Hello

I understand there is a notice on the wikipedia regarding discussions about possible deletion of an article which was created.

Please can you clarify exactly what is needed as I am new to this and have just finished one of the editing session where I have added additional references?

Thank you

VIL12345678 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! It is needed to cite several reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject of the article (see: WP:Golden rule). Articles must satisfy the WP:Notability criteria, which means that the subject of the article must be notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of "notability". The only way to prove that the subject is notable is to cite (reference) reliable independent sources that significantly discuss the subject. References you added are either not reliable, nor independent. You added 9 references, 4 of which are YouTube videos posted by the band itself (not an independent source). You also cite band's official web site three times (also not an independent source). This also seams to be written by the band itself. What you need is to find and cite reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (the band), like: newspaper articles, books, trusted news portals, etc. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am still completely new to Wikipedia and learning the ropes. I am a huge fan of rock music journalism and have found an interesting and available subject to write about and so have combined these two interests together. Thank you for your assistance clarifying the above, your points have been duly noted and I have made a few edits which I will be glad if you can look over. Many thanks

VIL12345678 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

My photos
Hello! I saw you're the admin that patrolled my pages, that are now without any photo, for questions of copyright. The website from I took the photos is the one of the monastery in which I pratice. Right now, They let with a Common License use their photos http://www.monasterozen.it/it/monastero-zen-senbo-ji.html So, how I can let unlock them from Wikicommons?

Thank you by now for your kindness.

--JEMilani (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm not an administrator, but yes, I'm doing the new pages patrol. I see that the monastery now labels those images with the free license, which means that their copyright status is compatible with Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. You can go to Wikimedia Commons and ask the deleting administrator to undelete those photos (that is, I believe, Commons:User:Fastily). Or, you can simply upload those photos again and tag them with the correct copyright tag (that would be the CC BY-SA 3.0 license). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine!

 * Thanks a lot! Vanjagenije (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A question about editing and admin's reviews
Hi Vanjagenije. I've been editing in Wikipedia for sometime now, but there's something I'm not sure of, and like to consult with you. There are pages that require some kind of a cleanup, and I'd like to contribute by editing them. I'd like to know what should I do once I finish? Should I remove the tag with the request on the page? is there anyway to "call" an admin and request his/her review? For example, I'd like to edit the Special Olympics' page, since it has a tag saying there are bare URL's in it. Once I finish, should I delete this tag? Thanks in advance ShapLisa (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! The answer is: yes, you should remove the tag if you are sure the issue is solved. The cleanup tags are there to help users to identify the issue and to sort articles according to issues they have, so that they can be improved. They are not "official". Anybody may add the tag if he thinks the issue exists, and anybody may remove it if the issue is settled. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much for the quick response! It helped my clarify some things!ShapLisa (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack Foster (journalist)
Hi Vanjagenije

About Articles for deletion/Jack Foster (journalist), I agree that that's probably a copyvio and will have to go. But I'm wondering whether AfD is the proper forum. I for one don't have a lot of expertise in copyright matters, and I'm wondering whether that should be listed at Copyright problems instead of AfD? Basically I'm asking whether you should withdraw that nomination before non-experts like myself start !voting. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ps. I've left a note for the user at his talk page User_talk:Steven_Paul_Fisher. I think he needs some advice on copyright policies. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with you. This is a different kind of problem. I'll withdraw the nomination. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice
Let&#39;s keep it neutral (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Family System
Family System by Chevelle doesnt meet requirements (Music Notability), but how come does Linkin Park's All For Nothing? They didn't even perform the song live Ichevelle (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! If you read carefully WP:NSONG, you'll see that song is considered notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" and also if it "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". "All for Nothing" was the subject of several such published works (they are cited in the article) and also charted on the official UK Rock charts. On the other hand, you did not cite any work that discuss the song "Family System", nor did it chart on any official chart. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"bad call" deletion request
I vote to keep "Bad Call" It is a simple concept, except to those who are unfamiliar with it. Wikipedia users who hear or read "bad call" and are unfamiliar with it will be served by the Wikipedia examples and definition. The definition of "bad call" is neutral and should stay neutral. I do agree that "examples of bad calls" might be a problem, but will get Wikipedia more views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplifyonly (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is my talk page, this is not a place to discuss deletion of article. The discussion about the Bad call article is open here: Articles for deletion/Bad call. You are free to participate in the discussion. By the way, we don't keep Wikipedia articles just because they "get Wikipedia more views". We delete or keep articles based on Wikipedia's policies. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to talk to you here. I didn't think it appropriate to comment directly to you on the talk page, so I went here. I am somewhat aware that Wikipedia has developed policies about articles, but think this could be a great entry. "Bad call" should be a dictionary term, but if you look for it in other dictionaries you'll be disappointed; same with compilations of sports slang. While at the same time, "bad call," the term, had over 500,000 hits on Google. I just would like your help on getting a consensus on keeping the term.

Perhaps you could add to it. I know you would do so to the benefit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplifyonly (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I just want to thank you for taking the time to help me understand how to answer correctly the messages I have received.

Halcyon0612 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC) halycyon0612

Speedy deletion
You say my article doesn't point out why I am worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am and have been a prominent member of the entertainment industry in Canada and USA for many years as a musician and actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayoman1 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2015‎


 * Maybe you are prominent, but the article did not contain any credible claim of significance. I only proposed the article for deletion, but it was actually deleted by administrator, so you may ask him/her about the deletion. By the way, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing autobiographies (See: WP:AUTO), so you should not expect your autobiographical article to be undeleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator top icon
Since the RfD is closed, I'll post my answer here. When someone creates a derivative of a WMF image, their permissions are inherited. Also, have you asked Angelus before nominating? I bet he'd have no problem with it, but I posed the question to him anyway. 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Permission of the WMF is inherited, but the permission of the author of the derivative work is non-existing. We need permission of both. Why would I ask Angelus? Do we ask the copyright holder before we delete copyrighted non-free image from Wikipedia or Commons? Permission is needed a priori, not a posteriori. If author has no problem with using his work without attribution, than why did he release it under the said license? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review the WMF trademark policy, especially the section on Wikimedia sites. This also applies to any derivatives ("remix"), so technically, we do no need Angelus' permission, because he has no right to revoke such permission; this is what I ment with "inheritance".  23:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

about Koenig (organ builder)
Hello, I am almost newbie to wikipedia and performed some days ago my first French page for Koenig organ builder. I was then supported by a French experienced user too. So, thank you for your help, I appreciate experienced support.

I just wanted to give a short translation of it toward English and I thought it was correct with the boxes I have made.

Of course there are no link (yet ...) to any English speaking pages so far and I will try to put back the references ASAP, but they are in French. let me know, if you think I should do something else ?

regards, --JujuDeParis (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! It is very important to add references to the article. You may use the french language references. There is no rule about the language of the references. You should also make links from other articles to this one. You may start this by adding a link at the List of pipe organ builders. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks ! I've added the references corresponding to the translated text and will add further according to the translation of further phrases.
 * regards--JujuDeParis (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

15:08:18, 31 January 2015 review of submission by CV9933
Thanks for taking the time to review my submission. My original intention was to improve a couple of other articles on Wikipedia namely Kenyon Taylor and Ferranti For such a prolific inventor, the Taylor account is somewhat sparse and the Ferranti article needs much improvement. Whilst researching these, Albert Hall grabbed my attention and although I had no intention on writing anything on him, after reading dozens of Ferranti related patents I started to realise that he was a key person in the Ferranti story. I wrote the article because it seemed to me to be the bit of the jigsaw that pulls the other articles together. It’s difficult for me to argue the notability case because his untimely demise meant he was only ever going to get a cursory mention in Ferranti and the British Electrical Industry The National Shell Filling Factory, Chilwell article doesn't mention Hall and his relationship with Lord Chetwynd, but in my humble opinion could be improved if it was linked to him. Would it be possible to consider a case for including him in Wikipedia and see how he meshes with the other three articles? If later consensus on the talk page concludes he shouldn’t be there, then he could be removed. By the way, I don't have any personal feelings about this I joined Wikipedia to contribute and help and I am open to further suggestions. CV9933 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Every article's subject has to be notable. The WP:NOTABILITY is proved by citing reliable independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (see: WP:42). The notability is not inherited|, which means that every subject of every article has to be separately notable in order to have a separate article. If there are no reliable sources about the subject, than he is simply not notable and we should not have article about him. If there are reliable sources about him, than find them and cite them in the article. And remember: only sources that significantly cover his life and work are acceptable. No discussion can help if there are no sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I read the article on Primary and secondary sources and it seems that unless someone wrote a book on Albert Hall then it’s pretty much dead in the water. However there is a magazine called “The Engineer” dated March 7 1941 which contains an obituary with a substantial amount of information about Hall. The link to this document can be found by via Grace's guide here

(Page 9/16) Do you think it would be possible to cite this as a secondary source as although it’s a PDF document it is accessible?CV9933 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You talk about this? Sure, PDF source is perfectly acceptable. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanjagenije, I will try and get my head around the Template:PDFlink as I think there might be a better way to link to a PDF that warns the reader.CV9933 (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You should use Template:Cite journal to cite that source. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time on this. I still plan to work on this to improve the article further. I was wondering how I can reclaim my sandbox as it still redirects to the main article.CV9933 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. You should just follow this link: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CV9933/sandbox&redirect=no and edit your sandbox. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

23:10:18, 9 February 2015 review of submission by BrianneAngel
Hello! Doesn't IMDB count as a reliable source? I put that as a reference at the bottom of the page. External links.... Please let me know how to solve the problem, if its solvable! Thanks! BrianneAngel (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I left a comment on your submission (User:BrianneAngel/RamonBalcazar). IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source when establishing notability. That is beacuse IMBd is user-generated site. Read mre about that here: WP:ELPEREN. Official web site of the article subject is also not reliable, as it is not an independent source. Remember: articles need to cite reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (WP:42). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Nihongo
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Nihongo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

An invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska
--Anulmanul (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I'll decide about joining the project soon. I just have to tell you one important advice: When you post invitations to other users' talk pages, be sure to substitute them. You should use {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Republika Srpska/Invite}} instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Republika Srpska/Invite, as you did here on my talk page. I corrected that. Transcluding the template (i.e. not substituting) makes several problems, like being unable to edit the section, as the section is part of the template.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for telling me. I'll do so next time. --Anulmanul (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to go back to all the pages where you added transcluded invitation, and change it to the substituted form. If you do not do that, many problems would occur. See, if someone wants to answer to your invitation, and click "edit section", he will be automatically redirected to edit the page "Wikipedia:WikiProject Republika Srpska/Invite", because section header is transcluded (try it and you'll see). The user may be unaware of this, and he may edit the page, which will than make the change visible on all other talk pages where you transcluded the article. This may lead to a serious confusion.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I have done so... everything solved now. :) I won't do same mistake in the future for sure... ;) --Anulmanul (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti
Hello Vanjagenije Can I request your observations please? I have been looking at this article with a view to improving it, as it lacks citations. Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti but when I compare it with this website, which displays a 2005 copyright logo, they are fundamentally the same CV9933 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Already on 1 January 2006 the text of the article was almost the same as today (see old version). So, there might be a possibility that the page you found was copied from Wikipedia, and not vice versa.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will try to make some improvements anyway.CV9933 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Oskar Davičo
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI
Hey,

I saw that you've been making a number of edits to the SPI page and I appreciate your eagerness to help! :) I just wanted to leave a message with a few notes for you. In regards to renaming a case, unfortunately there is not a script to perform it. Depending on the case, you may need the assistance of an admin. Further instructions can be found here. While I appreciate your enthusiasm to tackle the backlog, I want to make sure that you take the time to review the cases properly. There's a few cases I noted that could use some improvement before they proceed. For instance the Wedensambo and Instalok cases have little to no diffs on the page. It might be helpful to provide additional supporting diffs to help the checkusers evaluate the request. Even in what may be "duck" cases, not everyone is familiar with the accounts so establishing this link is important. Also, in the Liquad_squad case, it seems that it's a very straightforward case as you've mentioned. Given that there's no history of sockpuppetry, and that the two accounts have a very similar name and no other account like it has edited the page, this can probably be closed with a block to the sock and a warning to the master account. I've also placed the Milos zankov case on hold. While the IPs may not be related, the accounts are in the same geographical area and there was behavioral evidence presented. In these cases, it's best to look for additional evidence that could support the claims. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it soon enough. SPI is just one of the areas where you may need to do a little digging. :) Mike V • Talk 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your encouragement. I did review all those cases carefully. I just did not know that it is a clerk's job to improve the case by adding diffs (Now that you say, it does sound logical). I'll give my best to improve those cases.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanjagenije, I wanted to add something for your training, in case you didn't notice it, regarding Sockpuppet investigations/SandKitty256. One of a clerk's jobs after a CU check is complete is to tag the socks. In this instance, Ponyo had to reopen, and then Mike had to tag. Next time, please take care of that before you close. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that. It was my mistake. Would not happen again.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI Icons
Hi Vanjagenije - I notice that you keep using the icon at SPI. This icon means that you are endorsing a case for CU that you yourself have initiated, which does not appear to be the case with the SPIs I've seen. Do you have a specific clerk who is mentoring you? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just using the SPI helper script as recommended to me here. It has no other option. And, yes, I did initiate those cases. Users who filled those cases did not request a CU, they just opened the cases. I felt that CU is needed, so I initiated CU checks. Did I do anything wrong?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't initiate the case unless you opened it, you only endorsed it for checkuser. Any clerk trainees need to have a full SPI Clerk mentoring them. If you don't have one at the moment please wait until you do as the process has many rules and nuances. It appears that added you to the list of trainees. Is he your mentor?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's . But, you still did not explain me what the problem is. How can I not tag that way using the SPI helper script?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, SPI now does "group training", where several trainees are mentored by several clerks/CUs. Vanjagenije's group is Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/January 2015. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I refactored your comment at Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student. As it stood, your comment made little sense. Just so you know, just because two administrators want a CU doesn't necessarily mean we as clerks have to endorse the CU. I confess, though, I would evaluate it more carefully before not endorsing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But, I did not endorse the request. I just changed the case states to "CU requested" and made a note of that. Two admins said that the CU is requested, but none of them changed the status. I just formalized their request, but did not endorse it. I left it for somebody else to do.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I reverted to the "CUrequested" diff, per Vanjagenije's comment above. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Vanjagenije--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved the rest of the discussion to User talk:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry (again) for clogging up your talk page. :p ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidental sock
Hi Vanjagenije, you're active on sock investigations so I'm letting you know I accidentally created a sock. I wanted to figure out SUL and created an account for English wiki by mistake. The SUL page to unify the accounts didn't like my English wiki login password. Real account is User:Aronzak. Tell me if this is a major issue and if SOCK means you need to delete this account. Sorry to bug you. Aronzakcommons (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating multiple accounts is not prohibited per se. Using multiple accounts for illegitimate purposes is prohibited and is called WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. So, what you've done is actually not sockpuppetry. Just do not use the newly created account for illegitimate purpose, and that would be OK. See here: WP:ILLEGIT.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

On Carlstak investigation
Hi Vajagenije, thanks for your comment. It was pretty frustrating, I had all the diffs and the link to discussion ready, posted it all as told by the directions at the sockpuppeting investigations page, and it went astray, got lost, I do not know what happened, so the post linked on the title is what I got, along with confusion about the suspect editor's name. Is there any way I can add the diffs faster, not one by one? The whole issue is getting annoying. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what happened. You actually created two separate case pages ( and ), but none of those contained any evidence. I turned one into a redirect to other, as the user's name is "Carlstak", not "Carlastak". I guess you typed it wrong first time, which is not a problem. The problem is that you have to provide some supporting evidence, preferably diffs that show similarity in editing/behavior between the suspected master and suspected socks. I'm not sure what you want to say when you ask how to "add the diffs faster, not one by one". You should edit the case page and add a post with some diffs that illustrate the accusations, and also with some comments if the diffs are not obvious. You can do it all in one edit, I'm not sure what you mean by "one by one".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that there are a large number of edits (diffs) made by the suspected editors, it takes quite long too go copy-pasting all of them one by one into the investigation page. There are about 4 usernames involved, and by now the whole editing conflict has taken quite long. Suggestions welcome. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that what I mean is some kind of diff summary for a certain username between two dates... Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, the answer is: yes, you have to cite diffs one by one. Of course, you do not need to cite all suspicious edits, just few of them to show us the idea. You should always cite a pair: a diff made by suspected sock and a diff made by the suspected sockmaster, to illustrate how they are similar.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps get an idea of how it works. I am seeing now that my post on the sockpuppet investigation is active, but does not have the evidence to support it, which I think could undermine my claim, could I add it now in any way? By the way, User:Johnbod is a long standing editor, I do not claim it has been created for the purpose, but investigating whether he has any connections with the rest, that is all. I am new to this resource and I may have put it wrong. Thanks for patience Iñaki LL (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since my user name is being bandied about here, I note that there is no link to it, which would allow readers to see that I have been an active editor since 2011. Iñaki's claim and his comment here imply that my account was created for a single purpose, when anyone can look and see that I have made 7,596 edits and have created 13 articles, several of great length and depth, not to mention all the articles I have made substantial contributions to, including a recent complete rewrite of History of Lisbon with almost all its 486 refs.
 * I am beginning to understand why so many longtime editors of Wikipedia have abandoned it, when it is so easy for someone acting in bad faith to besmirch one's reputation by making false claims. Why not have a checkuser done and dispose of this matter? Carlstak (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, I came here for technical advice, and Carlstak is now trying to exert influence. I won't say how much you are wasting my time either... You commented on the appropriate slot in the investigation post, right? I should apologize for not adding anything to Carlstak's or Johnbod's talk page anyway, since I could not confirm by any trace the investigation post had been activated, evidence is lacking, and I did not proceed to tell the parties involved. By then, Carlstak and Johnbod were commenting on the investigation post. I told Ashila1981 yesterday. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, FYI you (Carlstak) are suspected of being the sockmaster, not the puppet. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. First of all, there is no obligation to inform users about SPI against them. So, Iñaki LL, you did not need to inform Carlstak. Carlstak, what do you want to say? That Wikipedia editors leave the project because other editors are allowed to accuse them? Well, that is basic democracy, you know. Anybody has right to accuse you. If you think that is a reason to leave, it's your choice, but don't blame the system. WP:CHK cannot be employed on demand, nor is the negative result a guarantee that there is no sockpuppetry. WP:CHK is just a tool that helps us, but it's results are not binding. Anyway, you two need to stop arguing here on my talk page about each other. Iñaki LL, if you have any evidence, yes, add it now to the case page (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlstak).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where should I add the diffs? Sorry, this is being quite confusing, but thanks for your patience. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, you added them.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, someone is getting away with it, the sockmaster (for Historian Student, Sidihmed), and 2.136.207.64) have not been tracked down yet (please see the post added), it seems pretty clear they all have one single editor behind them, but since you seemed to leave the case, I do not know the exact procedure (next step), I am wondering, should I address another clerk? Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Curious
User:CiCiDubya - was created a few days before the CiCiDubs accounts. It has no edits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks a lot. I'll keep watching it.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions
As one involved in SPIs, can you answer the following questions please.

1. If a checkuser spontaneously blocks a named account as a sock, with no SPI and no other discussion at all, should the blocked account be tagged as "confirmed" or as "suspected"?

2. Should a normal administrator (non-checkuser) blocking a named account ever tag it as "confirmed" when there has been no SPI and no checkuser involvement? 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. You should get the answer from CheckUsers and administrators. I'm not any of those.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vanjagenije for your swift and honest reply. Sorry for troubling you. 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Largest cities of Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Largest cities of Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Sadman has made YET another
Looks like a very obvious one too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vivaan_Viswanath Wgolf (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, you're probably right. We're waiting for a CheckUser to confirm. The SPI is heavily backlogged.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I found another possible one who registered in December even. I was about to tag a article he made for a xfd but closed the window on accident and can't find it now, but even though that's before Sadman was blocked it is possible still. Wgolf (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you remember anything else that can help to find him?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rayhan96 Wgolf (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have put quite a bit of his pages as a prod but they keep on getting removed by someone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sameer_Paudwal Interesting enough one of his articles says under construction... Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If he is really a sockpuppet of a blocked user, all his articles will be deleted as WP:G5 once sockpuppetry is proven. No need to tag them, although you may if you want.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just added a IP that is a obvious one. Wgolf (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * They confirmed they are the same yet are not blocked yet oddly.... Wgolf (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't help here. I changed the status of the case to "admin needed", but still waiting for an admin to come.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI/Cdswalkthrough
Hi Vanjagenije, I have provided some evidence on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cdswalkthrough, as you requested. Thank you. LDS contact me 04:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

sr. wiki
Vanja, I think you should join sr. wiki. You seem to be experienced in patroller buisiness, and we are also lacking administrators now.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, but no thanks. I have no time for that.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine then. If you ever change your mind, just contact me.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Userbox
You're right; that is more readable. Thanks! Yunshui 雲 水 08:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 SPI
Hi. Please postpone a new CheckUser on Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. I have found a double-digit number of more potential socks, but working on improving evidence. I can add many of these tomorrow. Krakkos (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you insist on waiting. If there are more socks, CU is going to detect them. CU does not compare only suspected accounts, but also looks for so called "sleepers" (not yet discovered accounts). Evidence is needed to endorse the CU, but we don't need evidence for every single sock account. Anyway, the SPI is heavily backlogged these days, so we'll probably wait for the CU check for several days. Plenty of time for you to add more suspected socks.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, good. Thanks for clarifying. The reason i want to add as many socks a possible at once is that Tirgil34 has been socking with a large number of accounts under various IP's. Check out the complex set of socks discovered last summer. Krakkos (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. Well, as I said, you can add them tomorrow. As you can see in the archive you cited, CheckuUser also detected many accounts not previously mentioned as suspects.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that i have burdened you with this tiresome investigation. If there is any comfort in it, i have myself spent many hours with this boring work, and i'm quite tired of it. You don't need to worry about me adding more socks for now, as i have no intention to do so. From tomorrow i'll be unavailable for around a week anyways. If you keep the SPI on hold until then i might be able to provide further evidence. Krakkos (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You also deserve a lot of praise for your work on this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34
Vanjagenije, I didn't follow my own instructions. After I blocked the puppet, I just figured I'd go ahead and create the SPI in the other case. Sorry about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're talking about Uniquark9 / BillKillB? It's OK, no problem.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  00:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much!  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto
It's been two weeks (pretty much) since you or any other CU/clerk has dealt with the case. Could you please do something with it, one way or another? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you expect me to do?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase "whatever needs doing" is all I can come up with, I'm afraid. Passing judgement on whether the case does have merit or not, I guess. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

re: Anulmanul
My signautre changed when my request for changing username was accepted. Perhaps there are some old signatures with old username. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, sorry. It was my mistake.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiba Ali Khan
In your reasoning for closing you stated that "the edits of those two accounts do not overlap", but they do on Shiba Ali Khan, sock at 19:45, master at 19:57, and sock again at 20:03. Depending how much this point weighed in your decision it may need to be revisited. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, youa re right, there is a small overlap. But, anyway, Shiba Ali Khan stopped editing, the person abandoned that account and now uses Sak Kas15. I believe the case should be closed anyway.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
No problem. I've had this problem before on Wikimedia Commons. ​— Zotteteen1​ (talk)​ 19:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The user sadman
Okay a few days ago I put up a SPI and now I'm most certain this is him, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shraddha_Arya Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Stickee (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kokuchūkai
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kokuchūkai. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank You for your welcome and your cookies. I apologize for answering so late, but I haven't been familiar with wikipedia talk pages until lately. Best Regards.Alexsd27 (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you very much.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) – Davey 2010 Talk 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI question
There is a new sock of Sockpuppet investigations/Nucleargeek/Archive and I am not sure how to bring that to SPI without making a mess. The new user is

Same behavior as prior socks. Can you advise me? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just go to the Sockpuppet investigations and open an investigation. To open an investigation, click "show" at the box titled How to open an investigation, and follow the instructions. If you follow the instructions, there will be no mess.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * do i open it under the new sock or the old sockmaster? the instructions are not clear on that. i just don't want to create a duplicate case unless that is what the normal process is) thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The case should be opened under the name of the original (old) masetr. I see that somebody else opened the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thansk i will check that out. i hate to do it wrong and make more work for you guys - thanks for all you do! Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally get it now. you guys want it opened under the same name as older ones, and then it is archived  with the others when it is done.  i get it. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick Questions about SPI
Hi Vanjagenije, I have some quick questions about what I consider a frivolous SPI filed against me. Thanks in advance for your time and answer. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) How long does the CheckUser process take, and is there any way to make a request to expedite it?
 * 2) What remedies are available to the accused to wipe the slate clean after being found innocent? I.e. Renaming the case to any actual identified sock instead of the accused who has been found innocent?
 * 3) And regardless of whether there are any such remedies, how can I prevent what I consider an editor who is just out to pin something/anything on me, from abusing SPI again against me ESPECIALLY if the answer to #2 is that every accusation remains permanent even after whoever's being picked on is found innocent?


 * Sorry for not answering more quickly, I was away for three days. I believe your question No. 1 is obsolete now. Regarding your second question, I don't really understand your concern. Why would it bother you if the case in which you was fond innocent is kept? You now, courts keep records of all the cases; even if the accused is fond innocent, the documents are not destroyed, but kept. That is normal procedure, and I do not see any problem with it. Regarding your third question, you should not try to prevent other users to accuse you because "you consider" they have something against you. There are SPI clerks and administrators whose job is to protect SPI from abuse. IF someone makes several accusations against other editors without proper evidence, he may be forbidden by SPI clerks to fill cases, but your case is not of such nature.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by wiping the slate clean, my question was not to delete the case, but more importantly to rename it to whoever was indeed found socking at the page. The outcome was of the CU was not known yet, but, apparently DoRB found something about the IP but he declined to explain. But I'll leave it at that. Unfortunately even after the 2nd SPI that found me innocent, OccultZone has now decided to move it to ANI. I'm just fed up, frankly. But I'm not gonna give in just cos I'm being bullied, as a matter of principle. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no one was found guilty of sockpuppetry in that case. DoRB is prevented by Wikipedia policies to publicly comments connections between named accounts and IPs (for privacy reasons).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. And thanks for your reply. I'm having a tough time now from being harrassed, and your reply is one of the better things I've seen in a while here. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2
Regarding this, why didn't you give Elockid a good chance to reply to me on that? Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't think of that as a question. Anyway, I de-archived the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Devbulgames
After noticing a new sock,, and looking at some deleted revisions of articles, I found out that this sockpuppeter has been going at it since 2012. The original account is and there is an SPI for him at Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgames. Can you move the new case over to the old case? The last time I did some wannabe clerking, I kind of made a mess. Thanks! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you. What is the "old case", and what is the "new case"?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Devbulgames is the new case filed a few days ago. Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgames is the old case from 2012.  So the archive for Devbulgames should be moved to Bulgames. Sorry if I wasn't clear. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the administrator, and I'm not. You can merge Sockpuppet investigations/Devbulgames into Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgames performing the history merge. I can help you to clean up the mess after you merge them.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, histmerge... one of the few admin things I don't do... I copy/pasted the archive over.  My apologies if I made a mess. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's OK that way, I believe. The history is not so important anyway.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Histmerge gives me a headache every time I try to read the instructions.  It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me and I worry that I'll make a mess of it.  I make enough messes already. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

George Zabelka deletion page
Chidiumeano (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Dear Vanjagenije

Reference to this, the author wrote this, which was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 17th January 2015 but no response yet:

In reference to: George Benedict Zabelka (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.donehealth.com/new-best-george-benedict-zabelka.html) I hereby affirm that I, Emmanuel Charles McCarthy am the creator sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached text written about George Zabelka in the attached file (George Zabelka Bio for Wiki [06]). I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy] [Author and Writer] [17 January 2015] Chidiumeano (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, you don't have to post the permission on my talk page. I just informed you that your article was copyright infringement, otherwise I have nothing to do with it. If the permission is sent to the WP:OTRS team, it should be OK to use the material on Wikipedia. If you re-create the article, put this code: OTRS pending on the talk page of the article, so that everybody knows that the permission is sent.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks.Chidiumeano (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, u pravu si, ne bih da se raspravljam na ovaj veliki praznik. Samo bih ti porucio ovo, a nek ti to bude neka vodilja. Pozdrav.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Kindredwiki
I disagree that the accounts were "spamming". Did you not read my comment? What evidence exists for it? I agree that their usernames were invalid. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you expect me to do?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You stated that the accounts were blocked partly for spamming. Therefore, you must have had reason to suspect that spamming was occurring. What indicates the spamming?  What I saw was two company accounts who declared their COI and made generally reasonable edits.  What did you see differently?  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 20:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry, they were not spamming.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

quick
Ok, but take a decision, I will be away from computer for few days. I've provide enough evidences. But you're not an admin as well, so why are you holding the investigation? Has an autopatroller the right to do so?-- 115ash →(☏) 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am a WP:SPI Clerk, so it is my job to work at the SPI. Anybody can comment at the SPI, but only clerks and checkusers may change the status of the case. You provided zero evidence of CosmicEmperor being involved in sockpuppetry.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? No evidence? Are you joking? How coul you be clerk? Could you show anything to demonstrate that you possess the right to change the case? Thanks -- 115ash →(☏) 14:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've just seen the WP:SPI/C. But you can't tell me that I haven't give any evidences.-- 115ash →(☏) 14:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said, nothing you wrote at Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor provides any evidence of being connected to either  or . I'm starting to believe that this is some kind of personal attack against CosmicEmperor, and I'm warning you not to use the SPI process for attacking other users without evidence.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  14:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I got involved in an edit war with User:115ash in Bengali people . After that both of us were warned by Ged UK . Then I edited the talk page but not the main page as I saw 115ash was blocked for 48 hours . I have decided not to edit that page for my own safety . I was practicing using Twinkle and when I saw Brown American copying my signature I decided to warn him using TW which I used extensively in my old account page  LoverBoyInGarden . I personally don't care if anyone writes wrong things on 115ash's talk page or vandalizes his page .It was mainly because he copied my signature . How he did that ? For that i have filed a sockpuppet investigation against a sockmaster who is capable of vandalizing Wikipedia .--  Cosmic Emperor  (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

CU endorsements
Hi Vanjagenije, I appreciate all your hard work at SPI. However, I've noticed that you sometimes endorse a CU without giving any reason. Could you please explain why you're endorsing in the future? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I'll explain every endorsement in the future.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And yet antoher one to add to our endless sadman sockpuppets!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ashiqaligg This one makes it VERY obvious even by recreating the exact pages that were deleted! Wgolf (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I had no choice but to oppose for being wrongly accused
Sir, This time i didn't do it. you may block this account but please go through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZORDANLIGHTER#Shuar --            WRONGLY ACCUSED THIS TIME (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ZORDANLIGHTER created all those accounts to target CosmicEmperor .In his talk page, he is blaming LanguageXpert.He should be blocked from editing his own talk page as he is constantly pinging Check Users and wasting their valuable time.--ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)