User talk:Trijnstel/Archive/2014

This is an archive of User talk:Trijnstel

Pong

You were looking for me on IRC? Legoktm (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm; yes, I was. I saw you resolved bugzilla:32782 and wondered where we can find that log soon... Trijnstel_talk 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The bug is assigned and was resolved by Krenair, though. Vogone talk 15:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it was merged by Lego, okay then, my fault. Anyway, the bug seems reopened. Vogone talk 15:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The log will show up in the user's block log, but it only applies to accounts that are disabled after the change is deployed, which should go out with 1.23wmf9. Legoktm (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's what I wanted to know. :) Trijnstel_talk 11:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thnak you

Hi. Thank you for your help with my nomination. Much appreciated. --Meno25 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck with your candidacy for steward this year. Trijnstel_talk 15:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrapping up Croatian Wikipedia evidence pages

Trijnstel, thank you for your engagement regarding the issues on the Croatian Wikipedia. I have a question regarding the evidence gathering pages I've helped initiate and maintain, and I'd be thankful for any feedback or suggestions.

As you saw from my comment on Jimbo's talk page, the evidence gathering process has now finished, although the pages are still open for comments. The decision to finish with evidence submissions has been taken almost two months ago, but there's been a hiatus of over a month in implementing it, in part due to holidays.

During this time, the other user who was the most committed to running the evidence pages, GregorB, has semi-retired. seems to have dropped out. His last edit on any of the Wikis, from what I can see, was on 10 December. With his absence, I seem to be I am left as the sole fully committed user who maintains the pages and makes decisions about them, and I am concerned this may detract from their legitimacy. Since my own experience in Wikipedia editing & resolving issues is quite average, it's been great to be able to draw on the knowledge of a very experienced editor (GregorB has ~100k edits on enwiki) in confirming strategic decisions about the pages.

What remains to be done is unlikely to be very involved. After a sufficient period of time for comments, the evidence pages need to be closed for good and archived. I am actively asking users who express interest in the pages to comment, but I am not expecting much activity as the pages have been open since October and there's been plenty of opportunity to talk for everyone interested.

There are three particular tasks on which I could use a second opinion, in order of importance:

1. Deciding how long the comment period should be. My own thinking is that 30, perhaps even 15 days should suffice.
2. Confirming the decision to close the comments and archive the pages once this period expires.
3. Occasionally checking on talk page discussions in the meantime, if any (most of them are in English).

Since you're one of the people most likely to be using the information from the evidence pages, I'd very much appreciate any advice or assistance that can help me manage them in the remaining time they're active.

Thank you! Miranche (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, and sorry to bother you as I know you're busy locking accounts, but I wanted to ask how far you'd gotten onto the Croation Wikipedia resolutions. As I inferred from your comment on Jimmy's talkpage, my understanding is that you'll be drawing up a response on behalf of the stewards after having consulted with all stewards on what to do with the Croatian Wikipedia situation, then issuing some statement and perhaps resolution actions for the RFC. Can you confirm whether my reading of your comment was correct or not? If so, could you give an estimated time when you might be finished (no guarantees or promises) or how far along you've gotten on this project? Sorry for sounding so impatient, but I wanted to more or less give people relief about what decision they might expect in the near future, given how toxic and battleground-ish the whole RFC scenario has become. And anyway thanks for having taken on this monumental project to read about all of Croatian Wikiepdia's issues. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll post a more comprehensive answer later, but in short: we aren't the ones who make the final decision. That's up to the staff. (ping Philippe) Trijnstel_talk 23:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I posted a reminder at the talk page of Philippe. Trijnstel_talk 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an IP block by Trijnstel.

Hi,

I'm surprised; I just saw that my IP was blocked due to running open proxy, how come? Where did you get that from? Can you give me a clear and a valid reason for blocking 46.59.18.123. I couldn't find a better place to post this, apparently.

Thank you, have a nice weekend. -User:Thekingen97 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thekingen97 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2014

@Thekingen97: that IP address is blocked as part of a larger /17 range block (a webhosting). An IP block exempt might be useful for you. Trijnstel_talk 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of my recently closed RfCs from the RfC page

Thanks for your attention the RfC page. I have requested that your change removing recently closed RfCs entirely from the RfC page and placing them directly in the Archive, be reverted, and have explained this on Talk:Requests for comment. Please revert to restore those recently closed RfCs, this makes a close less disruptive by making it easier to reverse. However, if you are too busy, there is no emergency. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Abd, this is exactly why closure is disruptive to the RFC process, it causes others to think it will shortly be archived afterwards. I've added additional comments at Abd about what happens during proper closure, to prevent the archiving that it leads up to. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Abd, TeleComNasSprVen: OK, I just archived those as they were very old cases. Not because of the closure date. Trijnstel_talk 22:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Trijnstel, that was obvious. However, if an RfC is closed, someone may want to revert the close, and some time should be allowed for that. It is much easier to fix a premature close if the closed reference is on the same page, it's a quick edit. It looks like the RfC page is set up so that recent years remain listed on the same page. So I'd think that a recent close should stay there (it is really a recent decision). How long would you think?

@TeleComNaxSprVen, closure is indeed "disruptive to the RfC process," i.e, it is designed to discourage further comment in that particular RfC, except on the Talk page attached or "below the line." Once the page has actually been moved to the Archive, it should not be removed from there. So I've treated an actual archiving as an acceptance of the close. --Abd (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Strike comment to TCNSV, because it apparently upset the user, even though the user specifically addressed me, and I just saw it. I get weekly notifications from my meta watchlist.

Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe a month to give people the opportunity to re-open when necessary or appropriate? Trijnstel_talk 13:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

My thinking, exactly. Faster archiving may be done if re-opening would be considered disruptive, but this should not be done by the closer. I'm not clerking the RfC page now, because of what you can see below, but I may return to that at some time. I still intend to write a guideline for handling RfCs that may avoid problems that we have seen, so this will be a little piece of it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Such a guideline could be pretty useful. Please let me know when you're done with that. I'm interested in it. Trijnstel_talk 23:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Abd: No, I have no idea why you are trying to engage me again, or why you continually choose to bring the debates onto other users' talkpages and fill up their new messages bar with this nonsense, just like what happened with Billinghurst and PRS talkpages. That is disruptive, Abd. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Range block calculator

here we are... C-M (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for transferring your tools! Trijnstel_talk 14:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

YGM

Hey Trjinstel, you've got mail! --///EuroCarGT 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved weeks ago already, replied via email. Trijnstel_talk 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IP block (2)

Hi trijnstel,

Like above, you have blocked my ip 23.229.123.200. This is my private server, and is not an "open" or "public" proxy. A ban was made to it on the 13th December 2013. I would ask that you kindly remove it, and in turn, I will ensure that the security of the ip itself is only used privately by me.

please respond, thanks. - User:reveala —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 101.164.229.117 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2014‎

@Reveala: I've converted the block of the /17 range into a soft block. That means that you should be able to edit while logged in. Trijnstel_talk 22:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of IPv6 addresses

You issued the following block of an IPv6 address range:

20:48, 21 September 2013 Trijnstel (talk | contribs) globally blocked User:2A01:4F8:0:0:0:0:0:0/29 (expires 20:48, 21 September 2014) (Open proxy)

If my calculator didn't fool my you have effectively blocked a whopping number of 633825300114114700748351602688 addresses. Are you *really* sure that one "open proxy" justifies that action? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4f8:191:22ca::2:1000 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2014‎

I blocked that range as I found spambot activity in it. Since it's also a webhosting range, it became a range block. Now converted it to a soft block. Trijnstel_talk 22:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Email

I was traveling and just got back this week. will do. --Jyothis (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Trijnstel_talk 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to grab a coffee while you are waiting and check your email. :) --Jyothis (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - mail received Trijnstel_talk 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Please visit this page if you wish to contribute to a centralized discussion about a Wikimedia genealogy project. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone is notable so I don't really see the need for such a "Wikimedia genealogy project". And as such I wouldn't support it either. Trijnstel_talk 22:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

IP blocking

Hi, Trijnstel. I'm sorry to bother you, I see other people have asked you the same but I'm afraid I personally don't even know what a proxy is so I need to create a new question. By the way, regarding that "Before you complain" sign: this is NOT a complaint, this is a genuine inquiry from a person who knows nothing of computers and computer language. "If you didn't intend to use an open proxy" (??) What even is an open proxy. I'm just browsing and using my laptop as I always do every day of my life without any changes. "Changing the settings to "no proxy" should immediately lift the block" I do not know how to do this, I suppose I can Google it, although I don't know what other changes that might entail. Anyway, I created an account some half an hour ago and I'be just been blocked by you for reasons I fail to understand. For further information:

Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Trijnstel (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Open proxy: webhosting. Start of block: 17:10 23 nov 2013 Expiry of block: 17:10 23 nov 2014 Your current IP address is 23.227.160.2. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

Is there a way to solve this? I understand this is a safety measure but as you can see I'm an individual and nothing's wrong, or shouldn't be I hope, with me, my IP, my computer, etc.

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohpenelope (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2014‎

@Ohpenelope: the IP address you mentioned (23.227.160.2) appeared to be used exclusively for web hosting and possibly as an open (CGI/PHP) proxy. If you wish to know more about open proxies, please take a look at No open proxies. I've globally blocked both the IP address and the bigger IP range due to spambot activity. Since there are clearly also real users on it, I decided to adjust the block so that logged-in users are still able to edit on this range. Hopefully that will solve your problem. If not, please come back to me. Trijnstel_talk 13:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Done

Just been sent --باسم (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Rschen7754 has given you the CU rights and I did the other stuff (CU wiki/list etc). Trijnstel_talk 21:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

SRP

Thanks for your help, that was the first temporary admin request I handled. Since he had the support of the two most-active other contributors to the wiki (if you count DangSunM's endorsement of the request), I have extended it to 6 months. Should I change the log entry which says 3 months as well? Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: apologies for the delay. Yes, please change the log entry. Sometimes SRP requests get lost and then we always have the logs. :) Trijnstel_talk 18:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the help again :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

VPN block

moved to the bottom

I am typing this from my phone, because it is easier to do this than to change my router configuration. I'm not a major contributor or anything, but I've been making contributions since pretty close to the beginning of Wikipedia. I use a comercial VPN proxy on my home network because of concerns about privacy and net neutrality in the US (my home country). As a result, I can no longer make contributions. I understand the importance of protecting Wikipedia from vandals and bots, so I appreciate your work, but I wonder if you can extend the above policy (allowing registered users to edit) to other open proxies. I don't know if there is a mechanism in l place for this, but I think an ideal solution would be to have some kind of probation period for new accounts to prevent bots from cranking out new accounts and using those to spam wikipages. In any case, I'd hate to give up either my VPN or editing wikipedia. Thanks in advance. PS: my VPN is privateinternetaccess, and my IP (which is dynamic) is currently 173.192.170.90. SCooley138 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@SCooley138: I've changed the global and local range block of 173.192.0.0/16 so you should be able to edit again. I usually try to block as less as possible (ie, a small range and/or anon-only), but in this case it looked like there were no real users apparantly. In any case, I agree with you that we should be better filtering on bots/real users and we're already thinking about some new system or improving the current tools. It's not that easy though as you may understand... In any case I hope this is solved now. Regards, Trijnstel_talk 16:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Block #58359

178.63.97.34 is a Tor exit node, and iirc should not be blocked locally (I have permission to use Tor for reasonable privacy concerns, but am currently blocked from editing on meta by your block from 10 Dec.) - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 00:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amgine. I thought it's not possible to check whether a Tor exit node is automatically blocked by the system via mw:Extension:TorBlock, but I was wrong. This IP address has been globally blocked both individually and as part of a range block, see Special:GlobalBlockList/178.63.97.34, and also on Meta, see Special:BlockList/178.63.97.34 (and this page also mentions the Tor block). I've changed the block on Meta to anon. only. I see that you already has a global IP block exempt, which bypasses the global blocks but not the local ones which is why you couldn't edit on Meta. The global block was already changed after a complaint but the local one was apparantly forgotten. Hopefully everything's solved now. Trijnstel_talk 12:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

CU request

Hi Trinjstel, I have a new CU investigation for you at SRCU. Do you remember this case? The new request is about the same user and I think this makes you the best steward to perform this CU. Thank you and have a good time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Trinjstel. The case was dealt with and there is no need for further action. Thank you anyway. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, good to know then. (Sorry, was and am busy in real life.) Trijnstel_talk 12:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to know you're back

So how's life been treating you? I just returned from months of inactivity haha ;-) --Golden_burg111 23:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm good. Just a bit busy in real life and thus it's hard for me to keep up to date. And you? :) Trijnstel_talk 21:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, was busy haha. It has been quite saddening after I was harassed on another site. Hope to come back. --Golden_burg111 21:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

StewardScript

Hello Trijnstel. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of StewardScript. (Billinghurst's version was merged into the official one.) This is mainly to enable automatic updates, but it also includes a few fixes. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 04:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! (And nice to see you're fully back now.) :) Trijnstel_talk 11:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jermboy27?

Hi! User:Rattata735 looks like a sock - newly created account with a focus on gnomish edits to road signs, see [1] and [2]. Would you mind looking? Also, if it's a match, I suppose the folks on enwiki might want to know... Rschen7754 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Shoot, I meant to send this to you on Commons... oh well... --Rschen7754 05:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I've send an email to checkuser-l. Trijnstel_talk 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IP block

To Trijnstel:

I cannot edit in Wikipedia because my IP has been blocked by you. The error message I receive is :

---

Permission error You do not have permission to create this user account, for the following reason: Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Trijnstel (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki spam: leaky webhost, another of prviate layer inc. Start of block: 17:07, 20 March 2014 Expiry of block: 16:51, 20 March 2015 Your current IP address is 179.43.145.218. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki.

---

I am not an abusive user, so how can my IP unblocked so that I can edit in Wikipedia?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ldrey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ldrey (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2014‎

@Ldrey: The IP range is blocked anon-only, which means you should be able to edit while logged in. Could you try please? Trijnstel_talk 13:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cross wiki sockmaster/vandal

Hi, INeverCry ask you if you will lock my accounts. With equanimity lock my sockpuppets if you want lock 150 my other accounts (but it will useless because i every create new and new accounts and older not use). I want tell you that my main account is Toma646, which should never be locked be cause i use this account just to helpfulo work here. On enwiki i wait 6 months without editing enwiki because i want after 6 months request for unblock. On commons best what you can do is immediately unblock my account Toma646, if you not will do, i will my block evase and nobody cannot stop me upload new photos! No you, no INeverCry, nor Jimbo Wales, because i give fuck on my block on commons and i want upload new photos :-), and what i will do on cswiki, when my block expire or i will unblocked i will stop talk with all wikiusers there, because i cannot diskuse without soon block and i will comunicate with they on IRC or email. More about me on cswiki 1, 2.

I want contribute helpful to Wikipedia, but others users prevents me do it. I dont know what all chase me so much, when i not do nothing bad. I am good-natured, but i not will stay like tree when will somebody buggering and who will delete my some my helpful edits on Wikipedia or block me just for the fun, will give deservedly kick to ass. You want stop my sockpuppeting? You not will stop if i will must evase blocks. On cswiki i am very helpful user, more then other wikis, and why i am there blocked? Because i boor, but there is one small mistake, because i not boor and i communicate decently and without personal attack, and i was blocked for nothing (please see my blocks in last month). Its true that i idiot was vandalise enwiki (i was very good vandal fighter on cswiki and I said to myself, that i can too try vandalise Wikipedie, because i not it do before and i wanted it just try), but i long ago stopped vandalise enwiki and nownot reason for my vlocking, so unblock me on all wikis.

One is true, I Do not get along with anyone, because is impossible not go to conflicts with they.--Toma646 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And on cswiki i was today unblocked :-)--Toma646 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Question

Hello Trijnstel. I think yes, I'm. Thanks for your advice. Regards.--Avocato (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good. Trijnstel_talk 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Trijnstel. I just wanted to offer my apologies for the inconveniences you've had to put up with from my resigning and taking back up the tools. You've always been great to work with, and I know I've been a pain in the ass at times. Thanks for all the help and support you've given me, and thanks for being patient with me. Take care. INeverCry 22:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you mean well, but sometimes I was thinking, not again... I'd love you as colleague CU, but please stay then. Trijnstel_talk 14:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been better to me than I deserve. I'd like to be a CU with you again, but I have to look after my health. You know how I get when the drama starts. Anyways, I've got a doctor visit in an hour, so I've got to go. I'll see you on Commons. Take care. INeverCry 19:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed working with you too, but I would like a steady CU. One who stays for a while. Someone I can rely on. And I'm not sure that's the case for you. So then, yes, it's better that you withdrew your request; especially since you respond a bit tense on "drama", which is almost part of the job. Trijnstel_talk 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Global renamer right

Hello. Done. Thanks for every thing.--Avocato (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. And subscription is now done as well. Trijnstel_talk 11:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Well, I always put this template first and writes email, so it may be bit delayed :p — revi^{^} 17:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm still waiting for your reply, regardless of things I am doing.... :P — revi^☏ 03:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Global renamers mailing list

Previous messages I have received in regards to this mailing list have at most said that it is "strongly encouraged" to subscribe; now you say it is required. Is there any being discussed on the mailing list (or IRC for that matter) that could not be done publicly on-wiki? I can think of two situations: privacy and to reduce signal-to-noise ratio. In regards to handling users' privacy issues, it is not something I have involved myself with previously on en-wiki, and it is not something I wish to do otherwise now. At any rate, other renamers would be able to address such issues much more expediently than me. In terms of signal-to-noise ratio, I'm not seeing how global renaming is such a controversial issue that would require a private forum to address; indeed, it seems to me quite mundane and I fail to see why we cannot handle all non-privacy-related issues on-wiki such as at Talk:Global renamers. Maxim_(talk) 13:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Maxim, strongly encouraged, since otherwise you might miss out on important information relevant for global renamers. Should you not wish to be informed about issues with the Global Renaming tools (including bugs, changes to the interface, ...), specific rename requests, and further contact with developer and other global renamers, feel free to not subscribe. The basic reason for which mailing lists are used is that by far more people monitor their mail instead of that specific page. Making the mailing list public is at this stage not an option, since the user e-mail adresses are not all public, and some of the information shared on the list (for instance, discussing an LTA who recreated globally renamed accounts).

This list was created based on the desire of the tool developpers (also volunteers) to have a direct communication method with the global renamers, so, yes, it would be appreciated if you'd subscribe. Considering 56 out of 61 global renamers are already subscribed, we consider that the purpose (reach out to global renamers) is fairly complete. Cordially, Savh^ñ 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, Trijnstel. A couple of weeks ago, you left a message on my Wikidata talkpage telling me to merge the four unattached accounts with my main account. I was able to merge the en-wv account, but I can't merge the other three because they aren't mine. What would be the best course of action? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply to email

Hi! Thanks for the congratulation, but now I just have more work and more responsibility

Yes, the account is mine.

Cheers, Alan ^(talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. I've accepted your subscription request. Trijnstel_talk 20:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i've received the confirmation. Thanks for all. Alan ^(talk) 12:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to the CentralNotice-admins list

Hi! This bulk email is to let you know about a mailing list used to communicate bug reports and new features in CentralNotice, and to facilitate conversations between the admins. This message is being sent to you because you have the privileges to use the CentralNotice admin interface.

If you use CentralNotice to post or modify notices, please consider joining the list by visiting this page and subscribing yourself:

   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/centralnotice-admins
   

Thanks,

Adam Wight (talk)

00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising Tech,

Wikimedia Foundation

Good stuff

Hey Trijnstel! Just read a article which involves you! [3] Wise words made this a good read! --///EuroCarGT 04:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: Thank you! Trijnstel_talk 15:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Supposedly this user speaks as if the checkusers on tr.wikipedia. 107.167.99.178, 176.219.144.99 and 176.219.149.108 IP users. Doing the same change and abusive content. --Uğurkent^talk 19:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Uğurkent, very very late reply (apologies!), but trWP has more CheckUsers. I suggest you ask them to check it out. Trijnstel_talk 13:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)