![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
![]() |
Thanks for making good calls in moderating discussions to keep peace and keep conversation focused on improving the wiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC) |
We have no beef between us. Let's not create one. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:300:62E:2D79:1C9F:332B:6B05 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Eternal Shadow Talk 17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)We apparently have a wiki-stalker: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LittleMemories for the most recent version. Any advice/ideas on longer-term measures or is this just gonna be a whack-a-mole situation? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the L St Laurent page, and also introducing me to a formatting template I didn't know existed. Will come in handy! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 23:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
You're being baited. Don't fall for it. Just disengage (as I did further up the page) before you say something in anger/annoyance that will complicate your life. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
You reverted before I could, but then self-reverted. IMO 5-1 after a few days still has a chance of turning around to some other consensus (even if that's unlikely, and if I'd probably !vote keep myself). I'm a big fan of NOTBURO, but in this case I just don't think it's SNOWing yet. Okay if I revert your revert of your revert? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 13:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
:)
--
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
14:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)rollback
or undo
tag on the first revert, and if I recall correctly those are the only kinds that trigger a notification. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Hi! I have been increasingly concerned with KigToons ( talk · contribs) editing patterns. They frequently will add/remove/change cast lists, sometimes without explanation, sometime citing official credits or billing blocks (when this info is not yet available). Sometimes this is followed up with proper citation, sometimes it is not. In my opinion, I feel that this editor is pushing POV to elevate certain cast members over others arbitrarily. Beyond that, I have left notes and messages on their talk page asking for explanation and trying to start a conversation, but these are not followed up with response. I am not sure how to proceed. I know you have looked at this editor's past and I'm hoping you could give some guidance. BOVINEBOY 2008 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I would not describe any discussion I have had with Cold Season since autumn 2019 as "productive". Cold Season has done a good job filibustering out any discussion in which his viewpoint is disagreed with, and then engage in months-long vigilante edit wars to push his point of view when others aren't looking. Previous attempts at escalation fizzled out due to a perception that there was insufficient attempts at local resolution; and when local resolution was attempted in further detail before escalation, it gets interpreted as local resolution being effective (despite the fact that it definitely wasn't). I respect your admin work greatly but in this case it is unfortunate that your closure is enabling him to continue gaming the system, and indirectly enabling certain censorious regimes to push their point of views onto our global knowledge resource. Deryck C. 10:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, if you want to reverse my changes at Deputy Premier of Manitoba & restore the ordinals in the eight related-bios? I won't object. But, you'll be facing an edit-war at Kelvin Goertzen, with editor Mewulwe. GoodDay ( talk) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
F.Y.I, there was a bad non-admin closed on Mystical Body of Christ - only two differing opinions is a No Consensus. Since you are one of the two, I'll leave it to you to contact the closer about this. MB 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ivan - hope you are well. At WP:ER/UC you logged for user A.A Prinon about being restricted to one account. For info, per this SPI case closed today, they've continued to edit with another account. I don't know if you need to do anything at WP:ER/UC, but I thought I'd drop you a note just incase. Thanks for your help with this matter earlier in the year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
First of all, sorry for the length (summarizing is not exactly my strength yet but I try, and use notes to improve rediability). Second of all, thanks so much for your response here, and I think that your description of "victims of communism" as "more of a propaganda topic than a scholarly debate" is exactly the point that many users who defend that article do not get; it is no wonder that the only other 'encyclopedias' to have such an article are Conservapedia and Metapedia. It is not enough to have a few, even academically (Rummel, Valentino), [nb 1] sources generally discussing the topic [nb 2] if they are a minority and are ignored by most scholars of Communism apart from, say, Ghodsee. If we cannot write a NPOV article, that article should not exist until our policies and guidelines are actually respected and followed. Because that article [nb 3] is not only unhelpful but, in my humble opinion, is actively harmful in propagating such unscholarly topic and a likely source of citogenesis. Now, I do not know whether you think that an article on the topic [nb 4] can actually be written by respecting NPOV and WEIGHT, while avoiding OR and SYNTH, or if it should be deleted [nb 5] — but "victims of communism" would be a better and more accurate name. I mean, the title itself is SYNTH because if there is one thing genocide scholars can at least partially agree is that the most-commonly used definition of mass killing is 50,000 killings within five years, but this would limit the scope only to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, so we synthethise it by using a generic definition where 4 deaths is a mass killing. [nb 6]
I have created the disambiguation for several reasons:
Again, this would reduce the scope to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I think some users who want to keep the article in spite of everything do not accept this because it would mean drastically reducing the topic to them, and we already have relevant articles about each one, so it is unclear why we should have such article. The only literature is Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008 on the basis that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot; in such cases, killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialisation (Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008, p. 8), not communism itself, so the alleged link for having such an article is gone. In addition, Cambodia is also often compared to non-Communist regimes, and the link in the comparative analysis is not communism but I am digressing. Davide King ( talk) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ivanvector. Thank you for volunteering for the Electoral Commission for the 2021 ArbCom Election. Following the closure of the ELECTCOM RfC, you have been selected as a reserve commissioner. Congratulations! Some important pages to watch about the election are: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021, and others in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2021. As a reservist you have no official duties, but your assistance and expertise are welcome as a de facto coordinator. In the event of a vacancy in the commission, you may be activated - should this be required it is generally declared by the majority of the remaining active commissioners. Again, thank you for volunteering for this important position. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 23:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Quite some time back you were kind enough to provide a third opinion on Talk:Phoebus cartel, but I'm afraid the dispute has flared up again. Could I trouble you to revisit the page and spell out your view? Jpatokal ( talk) 09:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. You were the closing admin on the most recent SPI for UrbanNerd in 2018. I just came across the latest IP sock. Contribution history quacks at all the usual ponds. What is the most expeditious way to block the sock? Another SPI, direct to ANI, or alternate? Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 05:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you blocked User:207.228.78.0/24. [1] Somehow that also led to me being blocked when editting from my phone while in Saskatchewan, which is where I spend most of my time. I do a lot of travelling and right now I'm in Manitoba now so my phone is using a different IP and I can once again edit. I'm not a techy so I have no idea how this could've happened. All I know is I'm not the one who made the edits that got the IP banned (and no one had access to my phone). I'm not sure how to get this resolved but I would very much like to be able to edit from my phone in Saskatchewan again. I hope this is an easy quick fix. Thanks! Masterhatch ( talk) 03:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Based on the amount of red names/new editors I'm seeing on the edit history at the Freedom Convoy article - I'm concerned there's a current influx of socks to get around the semi-protection. Should I open an investigation? CaffeinAddict ( talk) 04:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate a couple of responses from you.
Hi, can you revoke TPA for 172.58.224.0/21 per this? Thanks. Cards 84664 06:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, breaker, Pig Pen, this here's the Duck! 🚛 https://globalnews.ca/news/8602177/freedom-convoy-protest-us-far-right-support/ 🚛 El_C 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, thanks for your close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RJII. I saw that you said you'd blocked all three CU-confirmed accounts but then I noticed that two ( Precious delicate sweet little baby and Editor Without Bias) still have clean block logs. Was this an oversight? Or have I failed to understand something about the process? If it's the latter, please disregard this message. Much appreciated, Generalrelative ( talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. All Evlekis socks should always have their TPA revoked, or they will invariably start posting crap on their talk page, so could you please remove TPA for Special:Contributions/Zack_N_Jack and Special:Contributions/Brownfingerslayerz? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed that in late 2020, a discussion in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theonewithreason/Archive was resolved with a confirmation and blocking of sockpuppets, but the one-week block of the sockpuppeteer made by GeneralNotability was not modified. (I could have also posted this to their talk page, I guess...) I don't recall seeing this kind of an apparent act of lenience before, does it happen often?
Either way, fast forward to the present day... this user seems to have been engaging in content disputes (some of which I attested to or was part of myself), and today I noticed a disturbing pattern of behavior - they continued what seems to be a long-term revert war at Višeslav of Serbia, and then -- instead of responding on Talk about that matter -- filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive#13 February 2022, in what seems to me to be an attempt to disqualify their opposition in that dispute without actually having to argue the merits, i.e. gaming the system. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it's not my first rodeo with Balkan topic area abuse...
The other user in that dispute is certainly no sunshine and has previously been severely sanctioned (thanks to RoySmith in early 2021), but is now back under a restriction, one that also caused the aforementioned Talk page discussion to exist in the first place.
Maybe it's time to reassess the earlier lenience, in light of this? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zessede, what is an editor supposed to do if new accounts and anonymous users keep making the same edits? I know that RoySmith said to wait before continuing the investigation, but the page keeps being attacked in the meantime.
After Zessede and Aqww did it (as we discussed at the investigation page), the new users Accplc1213 and 220.95.101.209 just removed the references and material from Buyeo. The new ones from this week (Accplc1213, Aqww, 220.95.101.209) are ignoring the attempt to discuss this on Talk:Buyeo while continuing to push their Korean nationalist stance.
Am I supposed to keep moving the page back to its original version until this person get bored and stops? Several other editors were also undoing the new Korean nationalist accounts and anonymous users for the past year. I don't mean to sound frustrated, but there must be some other way than having to go back to check the newest account ignoring everyone else to remove the academic mainstream ( Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, De Gruyter, Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Antiquity (journal), Asian Affairs, ...).
Thanks again. I would appreciate your help (I also just asked RoySmith this). MGetudiant ( talk) 02:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, do you have something you'd like to say to me? Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
|deaths=
. As far as I could tell there's not: there's |reported deaths=
and a series for |casualties=
but I didn't think those were any more suitable, and then I found the custom parameter fields and so I did that instead. I don't work with infoboxes much, custom parameters are a new thing to me. I thought about restoring the 34 deaths field, but then I thought that, by the same logic, the 34 bodies that turned up after one of the sites flooded aren't necessarily causally linked to the residential school system either, so I just left it out.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)So, what are you going to do to make sure she doesn't keep committing marketing in our article(s)? This isn't a public park, you know, it's just another tourist trap. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
(SIGH) I had partially blocked from the COI article and let them know about the COI user name. I did not read them as being intent on promotion, just lacking understanding of our ways. Which they confirmed on my talk. Some people are just a little too hard ass. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think a consensus on who is considered notable should be on Layton's article's talk page. The initial reason for the granddaughters being deleted was due to him not having granddaughters at all as the reason that was originally given was that it was "untrue". I can confirm that Sarah Layton has two daughters (Beatrice and Solace) and Mike Layton has two daughters (Phoebe and Chloe), this is confirmed on his Social media along with Brett Tryon's social media. Can we agree that calling it "untrue" was erroneous without adding them to the relative section until and unless they gain enough notability to have their own article at some future date? Those girls are indeed Jack Layton's grandkids: https://www.instagram.com/mikelaytonto/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/bretttryon/?hl=en - User:CountingStars500, 18:46, 11 March 2022
Dr Shahzad Bhatti ( talk) 20:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I picked you at random because I can't figure out who the deleting admin was, actually I think the deletion was just done by robots (the history was deleted along with the file I guess). Is it even possible to undelete an image and, if so, could you undelete File:Composite_of_two_photos_of_Sara_Ramirez.png please?
So what happened was, at Sara Ramirez there was a dispute about which image of Ramirez to use, a feminine-looking one or one that wasn't (she's bisexual and nonbinary), and to settle it I combined the two photos into one, and that was satisfactory to all.
But then later a driveby anon removed it from the article (with their only edit), possibly for homophobic reasons, and so it was orphaned and automatically deleted (it's fair-use). I didn't notice this in time, nobody did I guess. I don't have the original anymore and I'm not up for making it again even if had the source images. Surely there a remedy for this, the image is kept somewhere? Thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 04:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my attempted corrections, it seems a revert was all that was needed and there was nothing worth saving in that edit. The changes by User:WikiMaster2K15 seem to be deeply flawed, and I even had to warn him against modifying quoted text. I will try to be more careful with my own edits, thanks again for catching my overcorrection. -- 109.76.196.74 ( talk) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Namaste. I'm Shriram from India. I needed to access history of an article. The link I had bookmarked is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagra_(caste) . This page had also been edited multiple times previously. The information I'm looking for is a Table with 52 things in it. It was on the same page. I didn't know how to access this info or how to request for the same. All I could managed to do is this 'talk thing'. if this is possible somehow, I request you please arrange me the same. Thank you in advance. Shriramsrz ( talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ivanvector Thank you so very much for your time. I will contact the administrator. Shriramsrz ( talk) 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you revert this or at least bring it back with modifications? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111766619 98.51.12.186 ( talk) 17:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
These revisions I made were deleted because User:Sundayclose said it was not in the sources cited but I am not sure about that being true could you check that for me and if it IS in the sources cited could you bring it back please? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_youngest_killers&type=revision&diff=1114876159&oldid=1114854589 Railtrailssuck ( talk) 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ivanvector I just found out that Sundayclose seems to have a history of not looking at the sources in certain edits, or maybe is just indiscriminately reverting a new user and flooding their talk page with inappropriate warnings? I think he just did that to me the second time on the updates I made on Murder of David Dorn.-- Railtrailssuck ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6#Bela_River_(disambiguation), I do not understand why this was closed procedurally. While "disambiguate" is a common RfD outcome, there must be consensus for it, and a single user drafting a disambiguation page below a redirect does not immediately procedurally render a current RfD discussion moot or lead to the redirect becoming a disambiguation page automatically, or require a new discussion at another venue. No user was given the opportunity to comment on Jay's proposal, let alone reach consensus to disambiguate. I request this discussion be reopened, as there was no justification for closing it. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the reason I added "acting" under Leader of the Official Opposition is because due to the NDP holding Official Opposition status at the time the interim NDP leader was by extension the Official Opposition Leader. However, after Layton's death she "officially" assumed the role since he was obviously not coming back. I will not revert your edit unless and until we work this issue out. Just wanted to explain myself. Thank You. 2604:3D09:982:A200:A57A:6360:7DD0:6ABD ( talk) 18:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention news articles referred to her as Opposition leader prior to Layton's death. 2604:3D09:982:A200:7D18:5D6E:2E2A:8451 ( talk) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ivanvector! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
/64
to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.Could you take a look at this edit? Is it connected to the last user to change the snow color on the page? [12] TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector ( talk · contribs) have been restored.
For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac ( talk) 17:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello can I ask you to do me a favor please? Ejdnfo ( talk) 04:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think User:RoboCric is a sockpuppet. Can you check? 103.120.39.35 ( talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
![]() |
Thanks for making good calls in moderating discussions to keep peace and keep conversation focused on improving the wiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC) |
We have no beef between us. Let's not create one. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:300:62E:2D79:1C9F:332B:6B05 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Eternal Shadow Talk 17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)We apparently have a wiki-stalker: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LittleMemories for the most recent version. Any advice/ideas on longer-term measures or is this just gonna be a whack-a-mole situation? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the L St Laurent page, and also introducing me to a formatting template I didn't know existed. Will come in handy! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 23:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
You're being baited. Don't fall for it. Just disengage (as I did further up the page) before you say something in anger/annoyance that will complicate your life. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
You reverted before I could, but then self-reverted. IMO 5-1 after a few days still has a chance of turning around to some other consensus (even if that's unlikely, and if I'd probably !vote keep myself). I'm a big fan of NOTBURO, but in this case I just don't think it's SNOWing yet. Okay if I revert your revert of your revert? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 13:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
:)
--
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
14:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)rollback
or undo
tag on the first revert, and if I recall correctly those are the only kinds that trigger a notification. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Hi! I have been increasingly concerned with KigToons ( talk · contribs) editing patterns. They frequently will add/remove/change cast lists, sometimes without explanation, sometime citing official credits or billing blocks (when this info is not yet available). Sometimes this is followed up with proper citation, sometimes it is not. In my opinion, I feel that this editor is pushing POV to elevate certain cast members over others arbitrarily. Beyond that, I have left notes and messages on their talk page asking for explanation and trying to start a conversation, but these are not followed up with response. I am not sure how to proceed. I know you have looked at this editor's past and I'm hoping you could give some guidance. BOVINEBOY 2008 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I would not describe any discussion I have had with Cold Season since autumn 2019 as "productive". Cold Season has done a good job filibustering out any discussion in which his viewpoint is disagreed with, and then engage in months-long vigilante edit wars to push his point of view when others aren't looking. Previous attempts at escalation fizzled out due to a perception that there was insufficient attempts at local resolution; and when local resolution was attempted in further detail before escalation, it gets interpreted as local resolution being effective (despite the fact that it definitely wasn't). I respect your admin work greatly but in this case it is unfortunate that your closure is enabling him to continue gaming the system, and indirectly enabling certain censorious regimes to push their point of views onto our global knowledge resource. Deryck C. 10:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, if you want to reverse my changes at Deputy Premier of Manitoba & restore the ordinals in the eight related-bios? I won't object. But, you'll be facing an edit-war at Kelvin Goertzen, with editor Mewulwe. GoodDay ( talk) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
F.Y.I, there was a bad non-admin closed on Mystical Body of Christ - only two differing opinions is a No Consensus. Since you are one of the two, I'll leave it to you to contact the closer about this. MB 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ivan - hope you are well. At WP:ER/UC you logged for user A.A Prinon about being restricted to one account. For info, per this SPI case closed today, they've continued to edit with another account. I don't know if you need to do anything at WP:ER/UC, but I thought I'd drop you a note just incase. Thanks for your help with this matter earlier in the year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
First of all, sorry for the length (summarizing is not exactly my strength yet but I try, and use notes to improve rediability). Second of all, thanks so much for your response here, and I think that your description of "victims of communism" as "more of a propaganda topic than a scholarly debate" is exactly the point that many users who defend that article do not get; it is no wonder that the only other 'encyclopedias' to have such an article are Conservapedia and Metapedia. It is not enough to have a few, even academically (Rummel, Valentino), [nb 1] sources generally discussing the topic [nb 2] if they are a minority and are ignored by most scholars of Communism apart from, say, Ghodsee. If we cannot write a NPOV article, that article should not exist until our policies and guidelines are actually respected and followed. Because that article [nb 3] is not only unhelpful but, in my humble opinion, is actively harmful in propagating such unscholarly topic and a likely source of citogenesis. Now, I do not know whether you think that an article on the topic [nb 4] can actually be written by respecting NPOV and WEIGHT, while avoiding OR and SYNTH, or if it should be deleted [nb 5] — but "victims of communism" would be a better and more accurate name. I mean, the title itself is SYNTH because if there is one thing genocide scholars can at least partially agree is that the most-commonly used definition of mass killing is 50,000 killings within five years, but this would limit the scope only to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, so we synthethise it by using a generic definition where 4 deaths is a mass killing. [nb 6]
I have created the disambiguation for several reasons:
Again, this would reduce the scope to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I think some users who want to keep the article in spite of everything do not accept this because it would mean drastically reducing the topic to them, and we already have relevant articles about each one, so it is unclear why we should have such article. The only literature is Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008 on the basis that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot; in such cases, killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialisation (Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008, p. 8), not communism itself, so the alleged link for having such an article is gone. In addition, Cambodia is also often compared to non-Communist regimes, and the link in the comparative analysis is not communism but I am digressing. Davide King ( talk) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ivanvector. Thank you for volunteering for the Electoral Commission for the 2021 ArbCom Election. Following the closure of the ELECTCOM RfC, you have been selected as a reserve commissioner. Congratulations! Some important pages to watch about the election are: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021, and others in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2021. As a reservist you have no official duties, but your assistance and expertise are welcome as a de facto coordinator. In the event of a vacancy in the commission, you may be activated - should this be required it is generally declared by the majority of the remaining active commissioners. Again, thank you for volunteering for this important position. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 23:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Quite some time back you were kind enough to provide a third opinion on Talk:Phoebus cartel, but I'm afraid the dispute has flared up again. Could I trouble you to revisit the page and spell out your view? Jpatokal ( talk) 09:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. You were the closing admin on the most recent SPI for UrbanNerd in 2018. I just came across the latest IP sock. Contribution history quacks at all the usual ponds. What is the most expeditious way to block the sock? Another SPI, direct to ANI, or alternate? Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 05:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you blocked User:207.228.78.0/24. [1] Somehow that also led to me being blocked when editting from my phone while in Saskatchewan, which is where I spend most of my time. I do a lot of travelling and right now I'm in Manitoba now so my phone is using a different IP and I can once again edit. I'm not a techy so I have no idea how this could've happened. All I know is I'm not the one who made the edits that got the IP banned (and no one had access to my phone). I'm not sure how to get this resolved but I would very much like to be able to edit from my phone in Saskatchewan again. I hope this is an easy quick fix. Thanks! Masterhatch ( talk) 03:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Based on the amount of red names/new editors I'm seeing on the edit history at the Freedom Convoy article - I'm concerned there's a current influx of socks to get around the semi-protection. Should I open an investigation? CaffeinAddict ( talk) 04:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate a couple of responses from you.
Hi, can you revoke TPA for 172.58.224.0/21 per this? Thanks. Cards 84664 06:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, breaker, Pig Pen, this here's the Duck! 🚛 https://globalnews.ca/news/8602177/freedom-convoy-protest-us-far-right-support/ 🚛 El_C 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, thanks for your close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RJII. I saw that you said you'd blocked all three CU-confirmed accounts but then I noticed that two ( Precious delicate sweet little baby and Editor Without Bias) still have clean block logs. Was this an oversight? Or have I failed to understand something about the process? If it's the latter, please disregard this message. Much appreciated, Generalrelative ( talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. All Evlekis socks should always have their TPA revoked, or they will invariably start posting crap on their talk page, so could you please remove TPA for Special:Contributions/Zack_N_Jack and Special:Contributions/Brownfingerslayerz? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed that in late 2020, a discussion in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theonewithreason/Archive was resolved with a confirmation and blocking of sockpuppets, but the one-week block of the sockpuppeteer made by GeneralNotability was not modified. (I could have also posted this to their talk page, I guess...) I don't recall seeing this kind of an apparent act of lenience before, does it happen often?
Either way, fast forward to the present day... this user seems to have been engaging in content disputes (some of which I attested to or was part of myself), and today I noticed a disturbing pattern of behavior - they continued what seems to be a long-term revert war at Višeslav of Serbia, and then -- instead of responding on Talk about that matter -- filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive#13 February 2022, in what seems to me to be an attempt to disqualify their opposition in that dispute without actually having to argue the merits, i.e. gaming the system. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it's not my first rodeo with Balkan topic area abuse...
The other user in that dispute is certainly no sunshine and has previously been severely sanctioned (thanks to RoySmith in early 2021), but is now back under a restriction, one that also caused the aforementioned Talk page discussion to exist in the first place.
Maybe it's time to reassess the earlier lenience, in light of this? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zessede, what is an editor supposed to do if new accounts and anonymous users keep making the same edits? I know that RoySmith said to wait before continuing the investigation, but the page keeps being attacked in the meantime.
After Zessede and Aqww did it (as we discussed at the investigation page), the new users Accplc1213 and 220.95.101.209 just removed the references and material from Buyeo. The new ones from this week (Accplc1213, Aqww, 220.95.101.209) are ignoring the attempt to discuss this on Talk:Buyeo while continuing to push their Korean nationalist stance.
Am I supposed to keep moving the page back to its original version until this person get bored and stops? Several other editors were also undoing the new Korean nationalist accounts and anonymous users for the past year. I don't mean to sound frustrated, but there must be some other way than having to go back to check the newest account ignoring everyone else to remove the academic mainstream ( Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, De Gruyter, Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Antiquity (journal), Asian Affairs, ...).
Thanks again. I would appreciate your help (I also just asked RoySmith this). MGetudiant ( talk) 02:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, do you have something you'd like to say to me? Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
|deaths=
. As far as I could tell there's not: there's |reported deaths=
and a series for |casualties=
but I didn't think those were any more suitable, and then I found the custom parameter fields and so I did that instead. I don't work with infoboxes much, custom parameters are a new thing to me. I thought about restoring the 34 deaths field, but then I thought that, by the same logic, the 34 bodies that turned up after one of the sites flooded aren't necessarily causally linked to the residential school system either, so I just left it out.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)So, what are you going to do to make sure she doesn't keep committing marketing in our article(s)? This isn't a public park, you know, it's just another tourist trap. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
(SIGH) I had partially blocked from the COI article and let them know about the COI user name. I did not read them as being intent on promotion, just lacking understanding of our ways. Which they confirmed on my talk. Some people are just a little too hard ass. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think a consensus on who is considered notable should be on Layton's article's talk page. The initial reason for the granddaughters being deleted was due to him not having granddaughters at all as the reason that was originally given was that it was "untrue". I can confirm that Sarah Layton has two daughters (Beatrice and Solace) and Mike Layton has two daughters (Phoebe and Chloe), this is confirmed on his Social media along with Brett Tryon's social media. Can we agree that calling it "untrue" was erroneous without adding them to the relative section until and unless they gain enough notability to have their own article at some future date? Those girls are indeed Jack Layton's grandkids: https://www.instagram.com/mikelaytonto/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/bretttryon/?hl=en - User:CountingStars500, 18:46, 11 March 2022
Dr Shahzad Bhatti ( talk) 20:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I picked you at random because I can't figure out who the deleting admin was, actually I think the deletion was just done by robots (the history was deleted along with the file I guess). Is it even possible to undelete an image and, if so, could you undelete File:Composite_of_two_photos_of_Sara_Ramirez.png please?
So what happened was, at Sara Ramirez there was a dispute about which image of Ramirez to use, a feminine-looking one or one that wasn't (she's bisexual and nonbinary), and to settle it I combined the two photos into one, and that was satisfactory to all.
But then later a driveby anon removed it from the article (with their only edit), possibly for homophobic reasons, and so it was orphaned and automatically deleted (it's fair-use). I didn't notice this in time, nobody did I guess. I don't have the original anymore and I'm not up for making it again even if had the source images. Surely there a remedy for this, the image is kept somewhere? Thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 04:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my attempted corrections, it seems a revert was all that was needed and there was nothing worth saving in that edit. The changes by User:WikiMaster2K15 seem to be deeply flawed, and I even had to warn him against modifying quoted text. I will try to be more careful with my own edits, thanks again for catching my overcorrection. -- 109.76.196.74 ( talk) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Namaste. I'm Shriram from India. I needed to access history of an article. The link I had bookmarked is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagra_(caste) . This page had also been edited multiple times previously. The information I'm looking for is a Table with 52 things in it. It was on the same page. I didn't know how to access this info or how to request for the same. All I could managed to do is this 'talk thing'. if this is possible somehow, I request you please arrange me the same. Thank you in advance. Shriramsrz ( talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ivanvector Thank you so very much for your time. I will contact the administrator. Shriramsrz ( talk) 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you revert this or at least bring it back with modifications? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111766619 98.51.12.186 ( talk) 17:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
These revisions I made were deleted because User:Sundayclose said it was not in the sources cited but I am not sure about that being true could you check that for me and if it IS in the sources cited could you bring it back please? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_youngest_killers&type=revision&diff=1114876159&oldid=1114854589 Railtrailssuck ( talk) 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ivanvector I just found out that Sundayclose seems to have a history of not looking at the sources in certain edits, or maybe is just indiscriminately reverting a new user and flooding their talk page with inappropriate warnings? I think he just did that to me the second time on the updates I made on Murder of David Dorn.-- Railtrailssuck ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6#Bela_River_(disambiguation), I do not understand why this was closed procedurally. While "disambiguate" is a common RfD outcome, there must be consensus for it, and a single user drafting a disambiguation page below a redirect does not immediately procedurally render a current RfD discussion moot or lead to the redirect becoming a disambiguation page automatically, or require a new discussion at another venue. No user was given the opportunity to comment on Jay's proposal, let alone reach consensus to disambiguate. I request this discussion be reopened, as there was no justification for closing it. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the reason I added "acting" under Leader of the Official Opposition is because due to the NDP holding Official Opposition status at the time the interim NDP leader was by extension the Official Opposition Leader. However, after Layton's death she "officially" assumed the role since he was obviously not coming back. I will not revert your edit unless and until we work this issue out. Just wanted to explain myself. Thank You. 2604:3D09:982:A200:A57A:6360:7DD0:6ABD ( talk) 18:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention news articles referred to her as Opposition leader prior to Layton's death. 2604:3D09:982:A200:7D18:5D6E:2E2A:8451 ( talk) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ivanvector! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
/64
to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.Could you take a look at this edit? Is it connected to the last user to change the snow color on the page? [12] TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector ( talk · contribs) have been restored.
For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac ( talk) 17:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello can I ask you to do me a favor please? Ejdnfo ( talk) 04:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think User:RoboCric is a sockpuppet. Can you check? 103.120.39.35 ( talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)