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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello, hoping you're doing great.
I wrote my draft of the translation of Arise from darkness.
Thanking you in advance take a look.
[ [1]]
Stay tuned.
Greetings. -- Androveritas ( talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
How about, IVan. Hoping you're doing great. I'll be grateful if you can check the draft translation. Best regards.-- Androveritas ( talk) 03:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
How about it, dear Ivan.
Hoping you're great.
I deeply regret your resolution to the draft translation.
As you mentioned, at the time I wanted to be taken into account for an editing project on Wikipedia but the project was no longer fulfilled. That's why I put it on my freelancer.com user page.
Even so, I kept making edits on my own on Wikipedia. Such was the case of the draft and editions on the film. I really loved it as I recently visited Detroit and had the opportunity to get to know the place where the voices that were used in the movie were recorded. In addition I would like to have more experience in editions in both languages: English / Spanish. I thought a good way to venture into English Wikipedia was to do the translation precisely from the movie article. For this and other reasons I decided to contact you from the beginning. If I had known from the beginning of the situation so serious about the article I would have given up doing the translation. What I would ask you now, dear Ivan is: Was the article rejected because of the background of the article or because it does not meet the requirements and specifications of Wikipedia? I thank you in advance for your answer, because this will allow me to solve and prevent these situations in the future, while I continue learning in this vast universe great that is Wikipedia. Stay tuned. Best regards. -- Androveritas ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious: why? Vanamonde ( talk) 04:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Please remove the information that he has died until it can be confirmed by a reliable source that's not simply repeating an unreliable Iranian source. It's a matter of a BLP violation. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.
The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.
Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.
Cheers!
WikiEditCrunch (
talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
See User talk:EdJohnston#Page protection request where you have made some range blocks in the past that are relevant. How would you feel about widening your current six-month block from a /19 to a /18 ? I think that would address the issue that was reported about Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo. The IP 91.148.97.128 is just slightly above the top of the /19. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
Really - a default keep after no one voted to keep it? Take your pick beween a merge/redirect or delete. I'm sure everyone that voted would support either of those two options that eliminate the page as a stand alone page. Legacypac ( talk) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
PMC was very right that the Taku MfD closures are long overdue, and closing bitter discussions is not fun. Thanks for stepping up. VQuakr ( talk) 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's quite refreshing to see that you are drafting a RFC on the draft-notability/potential topic.It's but a fact that the close to the prev. RFC was too simplistic. Further, in the event of you not minding anything, I will look forward towards contributing to the drafting.Cheers:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
And it's good to see a new citation needed hand at MfD! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
See my recent log for some related CU blocks. I hardblocked an IP for a little as well, and protected a couple of articles. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We know that this topic is recorded multiple times in the encyclopedia, so deleting the record of work to date cannot possibly be helpful in building mainspace. Since you declined to respond to my ping, I'm left to wonder why a respected editor such as yourself participated here. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
You linked this comment on ProudIndian007 investgation. [2] But you should know that older SPI cannot be taken as precedent, because the new SPI not only brought more stronger evidence but resulted in CU investigation and no where CU has disagreed with the connection. Not only this investigation included more evidence but it has also revealed technical match of Jionakeli with sockfarm of ProudIndian007 as well as same edits. This report also includes evidence that these three sock masters 1) ProudIndian007. 2) Anatha Gulati. 3) MehulWB are one sock farm. Creating same promotional articles and editing same Indian subjects making same edits. Salvio Guiliano confirmed that ProudIndian007 and Anatha Gulati are same sockmasters. [3] MehulWB's oldest sock Benfold is the actual sockmaster since that account was created first.
Other CU has found Anatha Gulati's technical details matching with another sockmaster OfficialPankajPatidar as well as same edits.
Most of the evidence came after the previous SPI, that's why it should not be taken as having precedent. For example, what you have to say on Jionakeli saying "I emailed the CU" [4] just like MehulWB "I emailed admins" [5]?
Have a look at his first 4 edits:
4 significant edits in nearly 4 minutes. This new account was created on 27 March 2017 and has been always disruptive. Do you recall that Drivarum couldn't be detected by CU [6] and had been blocked after self-admission on email? Jionakeli having Possible match with ProudIndian007 socks is enough.
Since Jionakeli shares technical match and same edits I am not seeing any reasons not to block him as a sock. @ GeneralizationsAreBad: had said "These cases should probably be combined", [7] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati is still ongoing. That's why your closure seems premature. Capitals00 ( talk) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I created an LTA page. Feel free. If there's a lot of socks an SPI is better. Destiny Leo ( talk) 03:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you guys mean I was abusing sockpuppets? There is such a thing as forgetting to log in. Since I created my actual account, I've only used the IP like twice and both times were accidental. -- Solitude6nv5 ( talk) 09:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of this SPI I just wanted to get some clarification regarding when it is appropriate to request a CU check. I'm understanding I should request it if I have reasonable suspicions of socking, but if I hear loud quacking I can just open the SPI without requesting CU, correct? – FlyingAce ✈hello 19:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you moved this page. Would you mind doing so with that of mine per G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name? You see that in contrary to what you guys did on the ANI, I tried to be cool as I was fully sure to be innocent. -- Mhhossein talk 17:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help -- I really appreciate it. I just heard from Arbcom and replied that I'll do anything asked of me to confirm my identity and get this matter resolved. Really surprised though by the reaction of those editors. One in particular can't seem to let this go. As to the issue of whether the exchange was libelous, as I've now stated repeatedly. I was decidedly NOT making a legal threat. I had asked the opinion of the lawyer in the office next to mine. In his opinion, the comments were "possibly actionable." Repeating that opinion is not the same thing as threatening litigation, even if that outraged editor would like to think so. -- Franz Lidz FranzLidz ( talk) 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I'm not looking for "hagiography", as one editor speculated. I haven't once mentioned the entry itself, or weighed in on any of the recent editorial changes. What concerned me was a specific section of the Talk page and its self-congratulatory Columboisms. If, as I requested, the offending copy is now blanked and archived in some non-public corner of the Web, I'm a happy camper. And if that's the case, I'd like to withdraw my request for deletion. Thanks for the time, patience and consideration of your editors. Or at least most of them. FranzLidz ( talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivan Greg, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words, since those managed to confuse just about everyone. If it makes you feel better - which perhaps it won't - I am not completely opposed to using the block button in any situation, I'm just going to be extremely conservative with it until I get some more experience. Cheers,
ansh
666 00:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw you did one I was going to request, this needs the same. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I realize the issue with the dogfighting. What about the vinča though ? And my source which states Serbians are genetic relatives off Vinča? As well I noticed an unsolved issue regarding Constantine the Great on the talk page. Any way you could clarify or give input on the issue at hand ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1807:7200:288c:ebc2:398e:7ea5 ( talk) 14:10, 24 September 2017
I see that you're not only deleting the prods in the various article (which is your right) but also the tags re: original research and sourcing. The fact is, the election numbering is determined by the election authority in the province and the claim that, say, 7th New Brunswick general election can refer to both the 1819 and 1890 general elections is original research. Moreover, there is only one blue link in the articles in question meaning that a disambiguation page is inappropriate according to WP:D. Nixon Now ( talk) 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
Sorry, I just posted this [12] but - after reading it - I'm worried it came out a little "snippy" which was not my intent. I just thought, in all the back and forth, you might have misread something and wanted to clarify. Anyway, wanted to apologize if it sounded aggressive (I'm traveling and editing WP from a phone which is a ... challenge!). DocumentError ( talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If the content is nonsense or is unlikely to be true. Be bold and delete it! Do not tag controversial, poorly sourced claims about living people. Remove them immediately!
Are you for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Citation not needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this of any importance? Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
You are controlling Wiki pages based on what you deem can be said and can not be said rather than the wiki policy now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you going to talk or just take action of locking and not talking just because you feel you have the power to control a public domain wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide or see the source? NO? then revert to my edit and then let's talk about it! If no source is fine then I will edit your subjects and do not remove my source less edits!
I don't even know what it is you think needs a sourceItalic text REALLY!!! Why don't you read the page instead of helping out a fellow controller!
The article KickassTorrents had its protection lifted today, and it didn't take long for Guril4 to turn up and alter the URL. You've got to admire the persistence here.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Hello. I just noticed your reply to my opposition of this user's RfA, and I would've replied to your question on the original RfA had I seen it and it was still open (I was not watching the RfA). The reason why I said WP:NOTNOW was because Kostas did not clearly show the experience that is expected of most candidates. When I see a candidate for adminship, I first typically look for whether they've been around long enough, usually over a year. I first noticed something was up when he mentioned he was only around for about 7 months, which to me showed little experience on the encyclopedia. Then I noticed the reasons for Oppose; per TheGracefulSlick, Kostas was given advice to wait at least a year to which he did not take and instead decided to nominate himself. Which I had used to state my opposition, but failed to mention. I apologize for this response being so late, but I hope it answered your question. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 23:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Ham tech person 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
See [13]== user Disranter ==
The context of this is a series of edits made by Narwhal2 ( talk · contribs) on the 8th and 9th where he added several references to the fringe self-published author Ralph Ellis, and when I removed them went off to various forums complaining about me. Note that he has uploaded File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where he identifies himself as Ralph Ellis. 4 days later along comes Disranter ( talk · contribs) reinstating an edit Narwhal2 had made (as an aside, the edit was basically redundant as the material is elsewhere in the article). He's been edit-warring to get it back and attacking me at Talk:Joseph of Arimathea, eg "Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed." (very ironic) and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This is pretty clearly WP:DUCK *as well as WP:COI. I'm too involved to block him myself. Dougweller ( talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please create a new case and merge them? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
seems to have fallen sloppy dead. I don't see in listed on the main page either. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivan, I was just stopping by to apologize for being unnecessarily discourteous to you at Headbomb's RfA. While we disagree on perspective, there was no need for me to attack your adminship status while dissenting. Oh and thanks for your helpfulness at Kostas' RfA. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Love it. E Eng 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. Unfortunately, I'm still being harassed by Dr.K. regarding the SPI case. I can remember that, in your "exasperated reply", you urged both of us to finish every thing there. Also, you warned Dr.k that his continued questioning of me at the ANI and on my talk page flied directly in the face of your warning to me not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. Now, after more than a month, he has revived the case by asking me to apologize to them for "insinuating" that they were "sockpuppets". After I reminded him of your warnings, he again asked me to apologize to them and said that he was not prohibited to comment on the after the ANI thread was closed. I quoted your comment regarding "his continued questioning of me at the ANI and on my talk page", but he interpreted your comments to conclude that "Now the thread is finished and [he is] allowed to comment" and that he could still repeat his apology request. Note that I was not talking about the SPI case and he just revived it. Per your warning, I avoided commenting on the case from the very beginning. I would like to know if I have understood your warning correctly or Dr.K. is free to repeat his apology request regarding the SPI case for ever? Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 12:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
...while I had asked him to finish everything.He did no such thing. He finished his statement to me in a question:
Did you just notice that I was careful enough and said "dr.k. was probably wrong" while I could...?, in response to which I asked Mhhossein if he could care to explain why he called Robert "so-called Robert". To call this simple enquiry on my part as "raising tensions", is indicative of the battle attitude and lack of accountability of this user. He then reverted my question claiming "harassment".
By the way, Icewhiz's first diff above, proves that Mhhossein adopted the royal "we" deliberately, not as a language quirk, but
to make himself appear as speaking on behalf of all wiki editors: You simply let your self making baseless and bizarre accusations and will get offended when asked to "write more concise to us [WP editors]"? I suggest you not to comment on every single part of my comment. Thanks.
So he thinks he can issue commands to me on behalf of all [WP editors], as he puts it, and then instructs me: I suggest you not to comment on every single part of my comment. Thanks.
, trying to stifle discussion and limit my ability to discuss all the points he raises. In all my years here, I have never encountered this level of arrogance.
In addition, a couple of days ago, he was still defending his use of "software movement", while
making the same bizarre request for me not to reply to all of his comments: Be civil please. Just look what a mess the TP has become. It's really not needed to comment on every single parts of others' comments. This way, the consensus building procedure will become difficult.
, talking about consensus on text that is incomprehensible in English, days after DRN had already told him that much. I think this disruption by Mhhossein has to stop.
Dr.
K. 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough[30] or interpreting these statements by Dr.K. [31] [32] as
"There you accused me of possibly having a shared account and etc"[33] as well as repeatedly insisting there is no problem (repeated page edits, talk, and DRN) with disputed content in Khamenei - AGFin becomes difficult. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough. If he has difficulty understanding editor's comment, then he certainly is not a good candidate for DRN and so on.So much for dispute resolution on en.wiki involving patently incomprehensible text. Dr. K. 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. K. 16:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Things are becoming much more interesting! Your language problem is very serious, if you don't understand my comments. Then please ask others with an enhanced level of the English language to explain them. If you have problems with understanding such level of English, you can't be editing in an collaborative Encyclopedia where users from around the world are editing and having contributions. Said that, you don't seem to be a good candidate to resolve disputes at the DRN, where those international users may be involved. -Mhhossein talk 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Removal of sourced and clean content As I explained here in details, you have removed well-sourced contents having nothing to do with copyvio or grammar, from the article. At least, the first and the last sentence was fully clean from those allegations (refer to my explanations). --Mhhossein talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Three days later,
he came to my talkpage again, this time to template me for removing the incomprehensible text from the article: Stop it, plz You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war... --Mhhossein talk 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
.
This has been an extensive and extended multi-sided campaign by Mhhossein defending incomprehensible text for weeks and attacking any perceived opponent and not accepting any arguments against his position. In the over 11 years I have been an editor here, I have not witnessed such sustained and wide-ranging WP:BATTLE mentality in another editor, especially in defence of incomprehensible text. In an article covered by ARB/PIA, this unsanctioned campaign makes a mockery of the DS system. Dr. K. 05:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector I think your intervention will settle down the tensions recently Dr.K. tried to raise, while I had asked him to finish everything.and I thought I was free to respond here. I also wanted to add more background to the latest incident regarding Khamenei, that you may have missed, and to address your characterisation on Mhhossein's talkpage of "haranguing" which you based on Mhhossein not understanding English. Instead I am additionally accused that I was "chasing around" Mhhossein.
I am also accused that I was "mocking" Mhhossein when I asked him: Again, what is software movement? How does software move? Up, down, sideways?. This is a very unfair characterisation and you missed the context surrounding this response. I had already tried two more times prior to that, to explain to both Mhhossein and Saff V. that software movement was incomprehensible. See very polite response 1: diff "What is software movement? How does software move? Also the description..."], only to be informed by Mhhossein that he has no time to read my response. Despite that dismissive answer, I then numbered my examples to humour Mhhossein's request. Only when Saff V., an even-more English language-challenged user, added more irrelevant responses, did I add the "software up, down response hoping that it could trigger some understanding to these language-challenged editor(s). Don't forget, I had to content, not with one, but two, language-challenged editors, one worse than the other. Add to that, the lengthy nature of the dispute, over what normally would have been no contest at all, to anyone with any competence in the English language, and perhaps you can see my predicament. Far from mocking them, I asked this question, just in case he would get the semantic meaning after more subtle attempts had failed. You obviously chose the worst-possible interpretation for that response, which is your prerogative, but that does not make it either correct or fair.
It has been hard enough communicating with this aggressive editor who is also language-challenged, without my attempts being unfairly characterised by you and being met by rude responses. It also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get involved with language-challenged users who push incomprehensible text into articles. You don't seem to realise the amount of time and effort it took on my part to prevent this incomprehensible text from entering this article, given the aggressive opposition I encountered. Given your continuing unfair characterisations of my efforts, I now realise that it was actually a waste of time. I will not repeat this again. Dr. K. 16:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppets showed up at Mhhossein's talk page and made remarks that have been redacted. More later. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Anubis. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
For some reason, I came into this guy's crosshairs about Oct. 15(?), 2017. For that day, he reverted almost everything I did in diverse parts of the encyclopedia. I couldn't edit. Anything. I gave up for about 2 weeks. I honestly do my best to contribute. If I err, someone inform me, and explain. I cannot edit war. I don't care that much, waste of time. I notice you reverted his changes, and restored my work. Hurray! I now check everything of mine he touched - all ok. I will not again touch those things - he has some kind of vendetta against me for certain topics, and I do not know him at all. He should not be able to "own" some articles, which he appears to do. Anybody differ with him, he reverts. He should be banned forever, for harrassment. Thanks for your attention. Sbalfour ( talk) 03:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I
edited the message you left at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao. The {{
SPIarchive notice}}
template displays the message automatically, no need to write it manually.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
Hello Ivanvector, I have this article in my watchlist and since I noticed there was a recent edit, I went back to it and realised I had left a note on it's talk page some time ago. This article was created by a user who was blocked and who created many articles, most of them without references, etc. If you read the article on his supposed father, Martín Alfonso de León which I created and referenced, you can see that this Gil Alfonso de León never actually existed and is an invention. I believe the article should be deleted but not sure how to go about it (outright deletion or consensus). Could you help, please? Many thanks, Maragm ( talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, VJ-Yugo is pushing their POV again. Serbian Military articles, edited Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro in the very first day, a blocked sock Hrvoje1389 edited the same article some days earlier. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello, hoping you're doing great.
I wrote my draft of the translation of Arise from darkness.
Thanking you in advance take a look.
[ [1]]
Stay tuned.
Greetings. -- Androveritas ( talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
How about, IVan. Hoping you're doing great. I'll be grateful if you can check the draft translation. Best regards.-- Androveritas ( talk) 03:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
How about it, dear Ivan.
Hoping you're great.
I deeply regret your resolution to the draft translation.
As you mentioned, at the time I wanted to be taken into account for an editing project on Wikipedia but the project was no longer fulfilled. That's why I put it on my freelancer.com user page.
Even so, I kept making edits on my own on Wikipedia. Such was the case of the draft and editions on the film. I really loved it as I recently visited Detroit and had the opportunity to get to know the place where the voices that were used in the movie were recorded. In addition I would like to have more experience in editions in both languages: English / Spanish. I thought a good way to venture into English Wikipedia was to do the translation precisely from the movie article. For this and other reasons I decided to contact you from the beginning. If I had known from the beginning of the situation so serious about the article I would have given up doing the translation. What I would ask you now, dear Ivan is: Was the article rejected because of the background of the article or because it does not meet the requirements and specifications of Wikipedia? I thank you in advance for your answer, because this will allow me to solve and prevent these situations in the future, while I continue learning in this vast universe great that is Wikipedia. Stay tuned. Best regards. -- Androveritas ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious: why? Vanamonde ( talk) 04:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Please remove the information that he has died until it can be confirmed by a reliable source that's not simply repeating an unreliable Iranian source. It's a matter of a BLP violation. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.
The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.
Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.
Cheers!
WikiEditCrunch (
talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
See User talk:EdJohnston#Page protection request where you have made some range blocks in the past that are relevant. How would you feel about widening your current six-month block from a /19 to a /18 ? I think that would address the issue that was reported about Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo. The IP 91.148.97.128 is just slightly above the top of the /19. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
Really - a default keep after no one voted to keep it? Take your pick beween a merge/redirect or delete. I'm sure everyone that voted would support either of those two options that eliminate the page as a stand alone page. Legacypac ( talk) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
PMC was very right that the Taku MfD closures are long overdue, and closing bitter discussions is not fun. Thanks for stepping up. VQuakr ( talk) 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's quite refreshing to see that you are drafting a RFC on the draft-notability/potential topic.It's but a fact that the close to the prev. RFC was too simplistic. Further, in the event of you not minding anything, I will look forward towards contributing to the drafting.Cheers:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
And it's good to see a new citation needed hand at MfD! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
See my recent log for some related CU blocks. I hardblocked an IP for a little as well, and protected a couple of articles. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We know that this topic is recorded multiple times in the encyclopedia, so deleting the record of work to date cannot possibly be helpful in building mainspace. Since you declined to respond to my ping, I'm left to wonder why a respected editor such as yourself participated here. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
You linked this comment on ProudIndian007 investgation. [2] But you should know that older SPI cannot be taken as precedent, because the new SPI not only brought more stronger evidence but resulted in CU investigation and no where CU has disagreed with the connection. Not only this investigation included more evidence but it has also revealed technical match of Jionakeli with sockfarm of ProudIndian007 as well as same edits. This report also includes evidence that these three sock masters 1) ProudIndian007. 2) Anatha Gulati. 3) MehulWB are one sock farm. Creating same promotional articles and editing same Indian subjects making same edits. Salvio Guiliano confirmed that ProudIndian007 and Anatha Gulati are same sockmasters. [3] MehulWB's oldest sock Benfold is the actual sockmaster since that account was created first.
Other CU has found Anatha Gulati's technical details matching with another sockmaster OfficialPankajPatidar as well as same edits.
Most of the evidence came after the previous SPI, that's why it should not be taken as having precedent. For example, what you have to say on Jionakeli saying "I emailed the CU" [4] just like MehulWB "I emailed admins" [5]?
Have a look at his first 4 edits:
4 significant edits in nearly 4 minutes. This new account was created on 27 March 2017 and has been always disruptive. Do you recall that Drivarum couldn't be detected by CU [6] and had been blocked after self-admission on email? Jionakeli having Possible match with ProudIndian007 socks is enough.
Since Jionakeli shares technical match and same edits I am not seeing any reasons not to block him as a sock. @ GeneralizationsAreBad: had said "These cases should probably be combined", [7] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati is still ongoing. That's why your closure seems premature. Capitals00 ( talk) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I created an LTA page. Feel free. If there's a lot of socks an SPI is better. Destiny Leo ( talk) 03:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you guys mean I was abusing sockpuppets? There is such a thing as forgetting to log in. Since I created my actual account, I've only used the IP like twice and both times were accidental. -- Solitude6nv5 ( talk) 09:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of this SPI I just wanted to get some clarification regarding when it is appropriate to request a CU check. I'm understanding I should request it if I have reasonable suspicions of socking, but if I hear loud quacking I can just open the SPI without requesting CU, correct? – FlyingAce ✈hello 19:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you moved this page. Would you mind doing so with that of mine per G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name? You see that in contrary to what you guys did on the ANI, I tried to be cool as I was fully sure to be innocent. -- Mhhossein talk 17:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help -- I really appreciate it. I just heard from Arbcom and replied that I'll do anything asked of me to confirm my identity and get this matter resolved. Really surprised though by the reaction of those editors. One in particular can't seem to let this go. As to the issue of whether the exchange was libelous, as I've now stated repeatedly. I was decidedly NOT making a legal threat. I had asked the opinion of the lawyer in the office next to mine. In his opinion, the comments were "possibly actionable." Repeating that opinion is not the same thing as threatening litigation, even if that outraged editor would like to think so. -- Franz Lidz FranzLidz ( talk) 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I'm not looking for "hagiography", as one editor speculated. I haven't once mentioned the entry itself, or weighed in on any of the recent editorial changes. What concerned me was a specific section of the Talk page and its self-congratulatory Columboisms. If, as I requested, the offending copy is now blanked and archived in some non-public corner of the Web, I'm a happy camper. And if that's the case, I'd like to withdraw my request for deletion. Thanks for the time, patience and consideration of your editors. Or at least most of them. FranzLidz ( talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivan Greg, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words, since those managed to confuse just about everyone. If it makes you feel better - which perhaps it won't - I am not completely opposed to using the block button in any situation, I'm just going to be extremely conservative with it until I get some more experience. Cheers,
ansh
666 00:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw you did one I was going to request, this needs the same. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I realize the issue with the dogfighting. What about the vinča though ? And my source which states Serbians are genetic relatives off Vinča? As well I noticed an unsolved issue regarding Constantine the Great on the talk page. Any way you could clarify or give input on the issue at hand ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1807:7200:288c:ebc2:398e:7ea5 ( talk) 14:10, 24 September 2017
I see that you're not only deleting the prods in the various article (which is your right) but also the tags re: original research and sourcing. The fact is, the election numbering is determined by the election authority in the province and the claim that, say, 7th New Brunswick general election can refer to both the 1819 and 1890 general elections is original research. Moreover, there is only one blue link in the articles in question meaning that a disambiguation page is inappropriate according to WP:D. Nixon Now ( talk) 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
Sorry, I just posted this [12] but - after reading it - I'm worried it came out a little "snippy" which was not my intent. I just thought, in all the back and forth, you might have misread something and wanted to clarify. Anyway, wanted to apologize if it sounded aggressive (I'm traveling and editing WP from a phone which is a ... challenge!). DocumentError ( talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If the content is nonsense or is unlikely to be true. Be bold and delete it! Do not tag controversial, poorly sourced claims about living people. Remove them immediately!
Are you for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Citation not needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this of any importance? Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
You are controlling Wiki pages based on what you deem can be said and can not be said rather than the wiki policy now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you going to talk or just take action of locking and not talking just because you feel you have the power to control a public domain wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 ( talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide or see the source? NO? then revert to my edit and then let's talk about it! If no source is fine then I will edit your subjects and do not remove my source less edits!
I don't even know what it is you think needs a sourceItalic text REALLY!!! Why don't you read the page instead of helping out a fellow controller!
The article KickassTorrents had its protection lifted today, and it didn't take long for Guril4 to turn up and alter the URL. You've got to admire the persistence here.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Hello. I just noticed your reply to my opposition of this user's RfA, and I would've replied to your question on the original RfA had I seen it and it was still open (I was not watching the RfA). The reason why I said WP:NOTNOW was because Kostas did not clearly show the experience that is expected of most candidates. When I see a candidate for adminship, I first typically look for whether they've been around long enough, usually over a year. I first noticed something was up when he mentioned he was only around for about 7 months, which to me showed little experience on the encyclopedia. Then I noticed the reasons for Oppose; per TheGracefulSlick, Kostas was given advice to wait at least a year to which he did not take and instead decided to nominate himself. Which I had used to state my opposition, but failed to mention. I apologize for this response being so late, but I hope it answered your question. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 23:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Ham tech person 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
See [13]== user Disranter ==
The context of this is a series of edits made by Narwhal2 ( talk · contribs) on the 8th and 9th where he added several references to the fringe self-published author Ralph Ellis, and when I removed them went off to various forums complaining about me. Note that he has uploaded File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where he identifies himself as Ralph Ellis. 4 days later along comes Disranter ( talk · contribs) reinstating an edit Narwhal2 had made (as an aside, the edit was basically redundant as the material is elsewhere in the article). He's been edit-warring to get it back and attacking me at Talk:Joseph of Arimathea, eg "Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed." (very ironic) and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This is pretty clearly WP:DUCK *as well as WP:COI. I'm too involved to block him myself. Dougweller ( talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please create a new case and merge them? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
seems to have fallen sloppy dead. I don't see in listed on the main page either. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivan, I was just stopping by to apologize for being unnecessarily discourteous to you at Headbomb's RfA. While we disagree on perspective, there was no need for me to attack your adminship status while dissenting. Oh and thanks for your helpfulness at Kostas' RfA. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Love it. E Eng 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. Unfortunately, I'm still being harassed by Dr.K. regarding the SPI case. I can remember that, in your "exasperated reply", you urged both of us to finish every thing there. Also, you warned Dr.k that his continued questioning of me at the ANI and on my talk page flied directly in the face of your warning to me not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. Now, after more than a month, he has revived the case by asking me to apologize to them for "insinuating" that they were "sockpuppets". After I reminded him of your warnings, he again asked me to apologize to them and said that he was not prohibited to comment on the after the ANI thread was closed. I quoted your comment regarding "his continued questioning of me at the ANI and on my talk page", but he interpreted your comments to conclude that "Now the thread is finished and [he is] allowed to comment" and that he could still repeat his apology request. Note that I was not talking about the SPI case and he just revived it. Per your warning, I avoided commenting on the case from the very beginning. I would like to know if I have understood your warning correctly or Dr.K. is free to repeat his apology request regarding the SPI case for ever? Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 12:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
...while I had asked him to finish everything.He did no such thing. He finished his statement to me in a question:
Did you just notice that I was careful enough and said "dr.k. was probably wrong" while I could...?, in response to which I asked Mhhossein if he could care to explain why he called Robert "so-called Robert". To call this simple enquiry on my part as "raising tensions", is indicative of the battle attitude and lack of accountability of this user. He then reverted my question claiming "harassment".
By the way, Icewhiz's first diff above, proves that Mhhossein adopted the royal "we" deliberately, not as a language quirk, but
to make himself appear as speaking on behalf of all wiki editors: You simply let your self making baseless and bizarre accusations and will get offended when asked to "write more concise to us [WP editors]"? I suggest you not to comment on every single part of my comment. Thanks.
So he thinks he can issue commands to me on behalf of all [WP editors], as he puts it, and then instructs me: I suggest you not to comment on every single part of my comment. Thanks.
, trying to stifle discussion and limit my ability to discuss all the points he raises. In all my years here, I have never encountered this level of arrogance.
In addition, a couple of days ago, he was still defending his use of "software movement", while
making the same bizarre request for me not to reply to all of his comments: Be civil please. Just look what a mess the TP has become. It's really not needed to comment on every single parts of others' comments. This way, the consensus building procedure will become difficult.
, talking about consensus on text that is incomprehensible in English, days after DRN had already told him that much. I think this disruption by Mhhossein has to stop.
Dr.
K. 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough[30] or interpreting these statements by Dr.K. [31] [32] as
"There you accused me of possibly having a shared account and etc"[33] as well as repeatedly insisting there is no problem (repeated page edits, talk, and DRN) with disputed content in Khamenei - AGFin becomes difficult. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough. If he has difficulty understanding editor's comment, then he certainly is not a good candidate for DRN and so on.So much for dispute resolution on en.wiki involving patently incomprehensible text. Dr. K. 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. K. 16:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Things are becoming much more interesting! Your language problem is very serious, if you don't understand my comments. Then please ask others with an enhanced level of the English language to explain them. If you have problems with understanding such level of English, you can't be editing in an collaborative Encyclopedia where users from around the world are editing and having contributions. Said that, you don't seem to be a good candidate to resolve disputes at the DRN, where those international users may be involved. -Mhhossein talk 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Removal of sourced and clean content As I explained here in details, you have removed well-sourced contents having nothing to do with copyvio or grammar, from the article. At least, the first and the last sentence was fully clean from those allegations (refer to my explanations). --Mhhossein talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Three days later,
he came to my talkpage again, this time to template me for removing the incomprehensible text from the article: Stop it, plz You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war... --Mhhossein talk 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
.
This has been an extensive and extended multi-sided campaign by Mhhossein defending incomprehensible text for weeks and attacking any perceived opponent and not accepting any arguments against his position. In the over 11 years I have been an editor here, I have not witnessed such sustained and wide-ranging WP:BATTLE mentality in another editor, especially in defence of incomprehensible text. In an article covered by ARB/PIA, this unsanctioned campaign makes a mockery of the DS system. Dr. K. 05:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector I think your intervention will settle down the tensions recently Dr.K. tried to raise, while I had asked him to finish everything.and I thought I was free to respond here. I also wanted to add more background to the latest incident regarding Khamenei, that you may have missed, and to address your characterisation on Mhhossein's talkpage of "haranguing" which you based on Mhhossein not understanding English. Instead I am additionally accused that I was "chasing around" Mhhossein.
I am also accused that I was "mocking" Mhhossein when I asked him: Again, what is software movement? How does software move? Up, down, sideways?. This is a very unfair characterisation and you missed the context surrounding this response. I had already tried two more times prior to that, to explain to both Mhhossein and Saff V. that software movement was incomprehensible. See very polite response 1: diff "What is software movement? How does software move? Also the description..."], only to be informed by Mhhossein that he has no time to read my response. Despite that dismissive answer, I then numbered my examples to humour Mhhossein's request. Only when Saff V., an even-more English language-challenged user, added more irrelevant responses, did I add the "software up, down response hoping that it could trigger some understanding to these language-challenged editor(s). Don't forget, I had to content, not with one, but two, language-challenged editors, one worse than the other. Add to that, the lengthy nature of the dispute, over what normally would have been no contest at all, to anyone with any competence in the English language, and perhaps you can see my predicament. Far from mocking them, I asked this question, just in case he would get the semantic meaning after more subtle attempts had failed. You obviously chose the worst-possible interpretation for that response, which is your prerogative, but that does not make it either correct or fair.
It has been hard enough communicating with this aggressive editor who is also language-challenged, without my attempts being unfairly characterised by you and being met by rude responses. It also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get involved with language-challenged users who push incomprehensible text into articles. You don't seem to realise the amount of time and effort it took on my part to prevent this incomprehensible text from entering this article, given the aggressive opposition I encountered. Given your continuing unfair characterisations of my efforts, I now realise that it was actually a waste of time. I will not repeat this again. Dr. K. 16:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppets showed up at Mhhossein's talk page and made remarks that have been redacted. More later. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Anubis. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
For some reason, I came into this guy's crosshairs about Oct. 15(?), 2017. For that day, he reverted almost everything I did in diverse parts of the encyclopedia. I couldn't edit. Anything. I gave up for about 2 weeks. I honestly do my best to contribute. If I err, someone inform me, and explain. I cannot edit war. I don't care that much, waste of time. I notice you reverted his changes, and restored my work. Hurray! I now check everything of mine he touched - all ok. I will not again touch those things - he has some kind of vendetta against me for certain topics, and I do not know him at all. He should not be able to "own" some articles, which he appears to do. Anybody differ with him, he reverts. He should be banned forever, for harrassment. Thanks for your attention. Sbalfour ( talk) 03:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I
edited the message you left at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao. The {{
SPIarchive notice}}
template displays the message automatically, no need to write it manually.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
Hello Ivanvector, I have this article in my watchlist and since I noticed there was a recent edit, I went back to it and realised I had left a note on it's talk page some time ago. This article was created by a user who was blocked and who created many articles, most of them without references, etc. If you read the article on his supposed father, Martín Alfonso de León which I created and referenced, you can see that this Gil Alfonso de León never actually existed and is an invention. I believe the article should be deleted but not sure how to go about it (outright deletion or consensus). Could you help, please? Many thanks, Maragm ( talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, VJ-Yugo is pushing their POV again. Serbian Military articles, edited Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro in the very first day, a blocked sock Hrvoje1389 edited the same article some days earlier. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)