Line 349: | Line 349: | ||
Hi Ivanvector, |
Hi Ivanvector, |
||
I have been thinking the last couple of days, about {{-r|Shlivovitz}}. I've decided to !vote for a weak keep for it, but the surprise to me is really that it got literally zero hits before the discussion at RfD. You would think it would get a few, since it's a fairly obvious misspelling. |
I have been thinking the last couple of days, about {{-r|Shlivovitz}}. I've decided to !vote for a weak keep for it, but the surprise to me is really that it got literally zero hits before the discussion at RfD. You would think it would get a few, since it's a fairly obvious misspelling. And not even any bot hits. |
||
It set me wondering, does the "autosearch" – I don't know the official name for this, but if you type a search in the Mozilla taskbar or another dropdown like that – does it automatically take you through the redirect ''without registering a hit for the redirect''? |
It set me wondering, does the "autosearch" – I don't know the official name for this, but if you type a search in the Mozilla taskbar or another dropdown like that – does it automatically take you through the redirect ''without registering a hit for the redirect''? |
Revision as of 16:25, 27 February 2016
NPOV
Discredited or not, your edits on Freemen on the land definitely do not stick to a NPOV --allthefoxes (Talk) 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Allthefoxes, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for posting your concerns here. As many beginning users do, you've misinterpreted the neutral point of view policy. Notably, it is not policy that we give neutral and equal weight and balance to all points of view on a subject. The policy states only that we do not impart our own bias when creating and editing content on the project. In order to do so, we attempt to neutrally weigh the points of view of published, reliable sources. In this case, the Freemen on the land are well known as conspiracy theorists endorsing and evangelizing their own novel views on the nature of legal procedure, views which have been widely discredited both in scholarly publications and in actual courts of law, which notably have never been successfully used, and which are only endorsed by their own proponents. The edit which I reverted attempted to downplay the conspiracy theory nature of Freemen views, and attempted to rationalize Freemen theories through the use of language which is common to proponents of the conspiracy. I recognize this because I've spent several years watching the article and seeing these same sorts of improper edits from "new" and "anonymous" users, which also happens to be a Freemen technique. It is also not coincidence that many of the words are misspelled and mispunctuated, as Freemen believe that exotic spellings and particular patterns of symbols effect particular legal meaning to ordinary words and phrases, and that declaring a thing "dubious" makes it automatically invalid and open to whatever convenient interpretation is next invented for it, all of which is of course ridiculous.
- Since we also have a policy against revert warring, I am not going to undo the improper edit again. I see you've been active in recent changes patrolling so I assume you're already familiar with that policy; if not, please have a look.
- If you have any other questions about neutral point of view or any of our other site policies and guidelines, please ask and I will do my best to offer input. You can also post questions at the help desk or the village pump. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source linked does not use any kind of language like what was present in the article. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Allie X RfC
Hope you don't mind but wanted to let you know that I moved your response on the Allie X RfC to a newly created threaded discussion section. I agree, we should probably go ahead and close it considering no users oppose inclusion. Meatsgains (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Meatsgains: no problem at all. Thanks for leaving a note. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
For helping unscrew the mess I created in trying to bring a debate to its conclusion, and getting everything settled with a minimum of rancor, I present you this Peace Barnstar. I've probably done this wrong too.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For cleaning up a mess Dkendr (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
AFD culture proposal
While I concede the result of the discussion on my proposal was going to be defeat, I do not believe you, as an opposing participant in the discussion, should not have been the administrator to have closed it. The procedure calls for an uninvolved editor. Trackinfo (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Trackinfo: Joke's on you, I'm not an administrator! :P You're right, though, but another user today (also my opponent, as it turns out) was having trouble loading the page to edit today, so some of us were trying to clean up the idle discussions. I think that the outcome was fairly obvious, but if you would like to ask for a closure review, the instructions say to do so at the admins' noticeboard. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am not seeking a different outcome. But as an experienced editor, if you know enough to know how to close an article, you should know the policy on who is allowed to do it. In the future, leave the responsibility to an uninvolved editor, as I said above. If one is not acting quickly enough, the procedure says to call for an uninvolved editor to deal with it. Trackinfo (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- And as an experienced editor yourself, you know that quibbling about procedure with other experienced editors is a pointless waste of bits when you don't disagree on the outcome. I'm well aware of the procedure. Thanks for your note. Kudos by the way for your proposal, I think it's quite worthwhile to propose improvements to the AfD process and to try to reduce the problems of frivolous nominations, and I hope that we can discuss more about it when the MOS transgender naming stuff finally gets to the archive. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am not seeking a different outcome. But as an experienced editor, if you know enough to know how to close an article, you should know the policy on who is allowed to do it. In the future, leave the responsibility to an uninvolved editor, as I said above. If one is not acting quickly enough, the procedure says to call for an uninvolved editor to deal with it. Trackinfo (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Bonaparte's gull
Hi Ivan: In the future, you might take a quick look before commenting something out in an article to see if it's being actively updated! :) By the time I went to fix the reference I'd just added, you'd already commented it out! MeegsC (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi MeegsC! Apologies, I did not check the timestamp of your edits, it just looked to me like you added a link to a reference that wasn't being used in the article, and I commented it to fix the ref error so that if you were planning to use it later it would still be there. Sorry to have interrupted your work, but in the future your reversion is an inappropriate use of rollback since you did not leave an edit summary, and that is only allowed if you are reverting vandalism. I do patrol Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting occasionally so I'll be back around if you don't fix the ref error, but for now carry on, and thanks for your note. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit Quest!
![]() |
Edit Quest! |
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |
'Misplaced RFC'
Why did you close the RFC with this:
'Requests for comment are for soliciting feedback on editorial changes, not for casting vague aspersions of editor misconduct.'
That is strange, because the WP:RFC is something else, may I refresh your memory? Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions. Which is exactly the problem I had, an editor repeatedly reverted non-contentious referenced material, there were only the two of us so I requested comment, what I didn't expect was for you to come along and close it down employing some frankly biased language. Now, I would like to put the rfc back up as I wish to: request outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content, may I ask, do you have some sort of issue with that and if so please explain why. Twobells (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Twobells: Thanks for posting this here. I closed your RfC for two reasons:
- RfCs must be framed with neutral language. Your RfC declared that you are right and another editor is wrong and that you wanted to solicit opinions from everyone else who so obviously would agree with you and would back up your side of the argument, which is basically canvassing. That is inappropriate. You also didn't actually suggest an edit to comment on. But the bigger reason is
- you put the RfC header at the very top of a talk page, where it doesn't belong, which is why my header was titled "misplaced RfC".
- If you want to put up a proper RfC with neutral language and interested in improving the article, then please do so, conversation is everything here. If you only have a dispute to settle, please try dispute resolution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your contribution, however, I see you failed to respond to your incorrect description of what a rfc is, rather you made it about who said what to whom when the crux of the matter is the removal of non-contentious referenced material, regards. Twobells (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Reported Singleissuevoter for editwarring
Hi, I want to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving Singleissuevoter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring at Block chain (database).Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for your note, although I see the request has already been declined. I had already reported Singleissuevoter as a sock of Rt665j4 but that report has not yet been actioned. You could have a look there if you like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ivanvector, that looks more likely to succeed, then. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 17 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks RefBot. This was done intentionally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Cheers
Thanks for noticing 8 months later :D Jksamnjason (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings!
- Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Katch 22.
Re: Draft:Katch 22 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Katch 22. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)
Dear Sir, I have read your observations with interest and would like to fill in some misinformation. Katch 22 had 5 single records released commercially, on the Fontana Label, 6 if you count being backing singers on Wayne Fontana's chart single " Never An Everyday Thing, ( Fontana Records TF976), besides the L.P.. The complete back catalogue was re-released on Cherry Red /RPM records (retro893) album, singles and BBC Radio One recordings, in 2011, and on the success of that, songwriters Paul Bonner and Mike Eastman from the band have released a follow up album of new material, featured regularly on Radio Six International (Worldwide). So, far from being a 'record collecters' minority interest, there is a story to tell, even if it is about being a BBC Radio One regular session band, appearing on " Late Night Line-Up ", BBC T.V., and their appearance in their own right in the Michael Klinger / Guido Cohen film, " Baby Love ", starring Linda Hayden, Diana Dors, Keith Barron, ......
I have tried to edit the page constantly in between my other commitments, and followed guidelines by ElectricCatfish, to copy other 60's groups pages as a template, but the 'designer page' seems very unstable to edit, and everything I added did not appear as typed, when 'published'. Instead of consigning it to the delete page, it would be more assistance to make your site more user friendly to enable people to edit .
If the page 'in its present form', is un editable, then so be it, and if so, I will be furnish another version in the New Year, to replace it. Katch 22 were so much a piece of 60s to 70's era, that I feel it merits a page of history in an Encyclopaedia. https://www.katch22sixtiesband.webs.com Your Sincerely Mike Eastman. Mike-eastman (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Mike-eastman (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Mike-eastman, it would be my pleasure to help you develop this article, however content must conform to our guidelines on notability: our general notability guideline specifies that a topic is suitable for a stand-alone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. I see that your article has been rejected quite a few times because it doesn't quite meet that standard. We have a list of criteria at WP:BAND which suggests when a group is likely to meet our notability standard, I think you should have a look if you haven't already.
- I've gone back and fixed some of the markup errors in the code for the page, because open ref errors were causing some of the content to be hidden, and I think that might be part of the difficulty you've been facing with the Articles for Creation reviewers. It needs some work still, especially with ensuring the references are to reliable sources. For a band these should be books, or newspaper/magazine articles, and should be written by someone not connected to the band or its label. To fill in a reference, fill in the code: "<ref>your reference here, a web link, book title, etc.</ref>" (without the quotes) - it's vital to have the "closing" /ref tag otherwise the software that renders pages doesn't know what to do with it.
- There will need to be reliable sources for the page to remain. I'll do some work on it myself and you can too, and if you have any questions feel free to ask here, or ask on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 21:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Turq Qunox
I kinda wish you hadn't performed this reversion. The presence of the invective by the article's author is the best evidence to be found of the invalidity of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I revert racist crap by obvious vandalizing trolls on sight, no exceptions. You can link to the diffs in the edit history though. That page is probably speediable anyway, try WP:G3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Seasons' greetings!
Ivanvector, Hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
78.26's RFA Appreciation award
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year Ivanvector!
Happy New Year, Ivanvector!
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year, Ivanvector!
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Re: Topic ban for UrbanVillager
Hi there. I didn't happen to follow the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for UrbanVillager as it was happening, so I missed some comments, among which one of yours that specifically named me. So as I stumbled upon it today, I felt the need to address:
- It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable.
That account's first interaction with myself was an assumption of bad faith and a revert of several different edits all in one fell swoop with the edit summary "rv". You can see for yourself in Talk:Boris_Malagurski/Archive 1 that I wasn't talking with a newbie who needed help. This was in October 2011. This account alone had been edit-warring with two others about some 17 byte change on that same article in April that year. Sure, you can easily say that more could have been done, but by the time someone is using Wikipedia lingo while edit-warring over details, it's usually well past the time for them to be gently nudged in the direction of guidelines and policies. It's one of the typical markers of WP:NOTHERE.
- Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway.
This is something of an oversimplified way of looking at what WP:SPI does. There's a mountain of circumstantial evidence in those investigations that doesn't have to be dismissed out of hand simply because CheckUser results were borderline useless. CU logs only go back 6 months, and when we're dealing with years of abuse, it's just not going to be overly useful. It's certainly true that at least a handful of admins refused to rule it sockpuppetry on the basis of presented behavioral evidence alone. But I found it indicative that each time the discussion was messy and the rejections were summary rather than detailed, which tells me lack of free time to wade through all the crap had to have factored into the decision.
Which is to say, there can be no simple assumption there: it can only be based on a rather complicated series of breadcrumbs that are laid out in dozens, probably hundreds of links from the investigation case page.
If you don't like following all the breadcrumbs (who would?), just go over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive#13 November 2012, find the text "List of all of UrbanVillager's edits in article-space with context added by bobrayner", expand that box and read just that. That list is probably the most succinct way one can look at this. It's just WP:DUCK - it is an exposé of an account used by someone who doesn't really seem to have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind. Sadly this list also got drowned in all the noise.
Overall it is rather ironic that the topic of the previous paragraph was how the attempts to reason with them were insufficient. A more cynical interpretation would be that the attempts were excessive - had I not bothered to try to reason with them and repair some of the damage on those articles, I would not be WP:INVOLVED and would have had my hands free to start employing sanctions.
[1] in addition, this reminded me of a well-known abuser who had invoked the cry of "but they checked me at SPI and found nothing!" several times WRT his SPI case. That's a decade of Wikipedia abuse in there. Sadly, that's not far from this one.
Sorry for the belated rant :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Joy! Yes, this is quite belated, the archived ANI thread is more than a year old, but I do remember it. I think that I pinged you then, if not then I should have and I apologize. As for the content of the thread, in the meantime I have had other interactions with UrbanVillager and others involved in that topic which have led me to the conclusion that there's much more interest in continuing the dispute rather than finding a solution and improving the articles, and as such I don't intend to comment on it further.
- If you do decide to pursue this at the noticeboards again, please feel free to ping me. I may be feeling less blunt that day. At any rate I do appreciate you mentioning your concern here about the archived thread. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just note that that's been the trademark tactic of some of these abusers - to make discussions on their pet topics so toxic that everyone starts steering clear of it. :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I know, even Jimbo has commented on the "civil POV pushing" phenomenon. It's just that from my perspective as an outsider in this area, it looks like *everyone* is pushing their own POV. As long as we don't have a good community mechanism to solve these kinds of conflicts I'm staying out of them, and that means definitely not taking sides. We definitely don't have a good process at present; there was a follow up case to WP:ARBPIA in which Arbcom agreed that there is a massive problem with throwaway sockpuppets pushing an obvious bias, agreed that it is a serious problem that makes the area toxic and unwelcoming to constructive users, and then basically acknowledged that we're not willing to do anything about it, because of a fucked-up utopian view of anyone can edit. Anyway, we have a long way to go before we have a good solution to this problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just note that that's been the trademark tactic of some of these abusers - to make discussions on their pet topics so toxic that everyone starts steering clear of it. :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- We actually mostly do have a process, it's been the law of the land since 2007 - WP:ARBMAC. It's just necessary for people to be somewhat less shy in applying it. If you see an editor engaging in a violation of decorum - tell an admin, either via WP:ANI or via WP:AE, and they're perfectly free to act. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Durham Centre, NB
Hi Ivanvector, I hope you don't mind me using you as a Canadian geography expert. I came across Durham Centre, New Brunswick, a redirect to Jacquet River, and thought it RfD-worthy because it's not mentioned there. I tried to figure out exactly where this place is. Google Maps puts it in Belledune, near Jacquet River School, which makes sense since Jacquet River was amalgamated into Belledune. If it was ever a populated place, it's considered notable. What do you think should be done? --BDD (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for considering me a Canadian geography expert! I'm in Ontario, which is pretty far from New Brunswick, but from genealogy research I do know some history about various name and subdivision changes that have been ongoing since the mid-1700s in Acadia/New Brunswick. This link will help, and info from it could probably be built into the Jacquet River stub. However, it seems as though Jacquet River and Durham Centre (or Durhamville) were separate communities which were joined in 1976, and oddly, while Jacquet River and Durham are both in Restigouche County, Belledune is in the neighbouring Gloucester County. It might be better to redirect to Durham Parish, New Brunswick, but you might get better insight from WikiProject New Brunswick.
- On the plus side, I found a couple maps of my ancestors' farms around the Moncton area on that site, so it's been a good morning overall! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll follow up with WPNB for further advice. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I see you think I am a Sockpuppet account. Whether or not you believe me, is up to you. But I am telling you, that I am not a Sockpuppet account.
It says it's because I edited something on John Boyega's page, all I edited was that he was going to be in a Nickelodeon web-series, which has been confirmed - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/01/06/john-boyega-will-star-in-nickelodeon-animated-web-series
In conclusion, I'm not a Sockpuppet account and I only edit for the greater good of Wikipedia (though, I have no idea why my edit was removed, since I had a reliable source).
- Hi BeanoMaster, I sincerely apologize for that. I listed a number of accounts which were vandalizing the page, and included all of the "redlinked" editors within the last couple of days because at the time I couldn't check the edits. I did check right after that, saw that your edit was clearly not vandalism and not the same as the other accounts, and removed your account from the list with a note explaining why. It was bad form on my part. As for your edit, it wasn't actually removed, but it's hard to tell from the page history because there's been so much vandalism. Another editor moved the web series into the television section in this edit. You can see it listed there now. Again I apologize for the false accusation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Hello, While I do admit to jumping the bandwagon on the "traitor" vandalism on John Boyega, I looked at other people's talk pages and saw that they all lead to a same case under my username. While I really don't use this account anymore, it is my only account on here. But my edit was really all that I said it was -- a bandwagon. Just wanted to let you know since you seem to be linking them all to my name. Have a good weekend! -DCU
Please comment on Talk:Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Involved editing of a MR
Hey there Ivanvector, when I first noticed you were editing the MR I was about to hit the undelete since collapsing information in something you're very involved it isn't usually a good idea. But then I noticed you were just collapsing our (yours and my) discussion, which I am fine with. FWIW there is now an ANI report regarding tendentious editing. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Tiggerjay: thanks for the note, I don't have a lot of time to respond today. I'm trying not to edit that page at all so that someone will just fucking close it once and for all, but I JethroBT's collapsing of some of the off-topic bits seemed like a good idea to help whoever finally decides to get to it (it's been #2 on ANRFC for weeks now) and a subthread tangent about the appropriateness of pinging previous closers seemed exactly like something else that needed to be rolled up. I've been specifically avoiding suggesting that we leave it alone, because I 100% expected to happen exactly what has happened since B2C turned his attention on it again. I'll come back to the ANI thread a bit later, I have to do 700,000 budgets before 1:00. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Have a great day! Yes, I think this going this route was inevitable. And thank you for carefully collapsing things to help trim down the size. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- The move review is finally closed... ANI still open, but not really being discussed. Have a great week! Tiggerjay (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that, thanks. I updated the ANRFC section with a "done" tag so it should be archived shortly. B2C is aware of the ANI (he removed the notice) but nobody else has commented, so it's probably dead in the water. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I did receive two other emails affirming my ANI but they haven't publicly posted their comments. I think some people have just given up and avoid him instead... Tiggerjay (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that, thanks. I updated the ANRFC section with a "done" tag so it should be archived shortly. B2C is aware of the ANI (he removed the notice) but nobody else has commented, so it's probably dead in the water. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
MW: Oppose unblock?
You wrote "Oppose unblock" in "Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mystery Wolff". Presumably, you meant "oppose lifting of sanction", since he isn't blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @William M. Connolley: yes, that is what I meant, thanks for clarifying. You're right, they're appealing a topic ban, not a block. I'll revise. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Neelix_RfD_list
One category you may wish to add (or distinguish) is translations into another language (the ones you have as "literal translation", such as let do (presumably was derived from laissez faire or laissez-faire) are out of another language into English. There's a few up for discussion at the moment (not all Neelix) but I can't find a good closed example offhand. They're not always clear-cut deletes when they have affinity. Si Trew (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: you're right, I expected I would add that category, but I was just making up the categories as I went through the discussions, and I hadn't come across any of those yet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
A red-billed francolin for you!
![]() |
You saved me! |
Thanks for your help with the Afrikaans bird redirects. I think the nomination is finally correct and I couldn't have done it without you. -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC) |
Just a note on R v Elliott
While I am certainly sympathetic to the concerns that lead to your deletions on the talk page, I find it's best to let the ugly stand and involve administrators as appropriate. Just a thought going forward--certainly nothing I am strident about. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. I appreciate your view on the topic, but I remove unsourced aspersions about living persons on sight, no exceptions, and I will revert if they are restored. There is a thread at ANI about this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine; I will certainly defer. I just wanted to make sure that ANI (or the appropriate board!) is involved. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Of course! And thank you for bringing it to my attention. Diffs of the offense are always available in the edit history. Well, they're not now, they were revdeleted, but they were at least available for ANI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine; I will certainly defer. I just wanted to make sure that ANI (or the appropriate board!) is involved. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Catalonia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalonia. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, just a heads up, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is generally only for obvious spammers / vandals. If you are having sockpuppet issues, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the right place to report those. In other words, AIV isn't a one-stop block shop. SQLQuery me! 22:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @SQL: thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I thought these edits were pretty obvious. I'll see about making an SPI case though. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Versions in translated page template
Thanks for doing the stub at Talk:Cibuntu, Cigandamekar, Kuningan. I'm not sure if you know, the version number in the {{translated page}}
tag (on the talk page) is (only) a named parameter (version=
), not as a positional one. I've fixed it. Si Trew (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I thought it was acceptable to do it either way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Where Sinners Meet
Hi. While I disagree with your comment at Redirects for discussion regarding this redirect, and BDD's decision to close it, I understand your rationale. The issue is that the CSD was removed by an editor/admin (not sure, but I think they are an admin), who did not check any of the sources of the current article to see if the title was correct. I understand when a film is known by more than one name, like Portrait of Alison/Postmark for Danger, but that's not the case in this instance. The name is simply incorrect. BFI calls it by its correct name, IMDB calls it by its correct name, AFI calls it by its correct name, and contemporaneous sources call it by its correct name, yet Wikipedia has it by an incorrect name. Even the only other citation in the article calls it by its correct name. Regardless, if that's the way admins want it to appear on Wikipedia, no skin off my nose. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 02:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: oh I believe you're absolutely right. This was purely a technical close, because what you're asking for is for the article to be moved over the redirect, and that's supposed to happen through Requested Moves, a separate process. I think you absolutely should request (on the article's talk page) for it to be renamed. That's not something we usually process at WP:RFD is all. Do you need help making a move request? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: I didn't hear back from you, but I've opened a move request on your behalf. Please see Talk:The Dover Road (film)#Requested move 10 February 2016. It's possible that I misspelled your name in the ping above; if you did not see my comment then I apologize. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, but as I said above, I was pretty much done with that issue. It's incorrect, but if admins want to leave it as incorrect, that's beyond my control. Onel5969 TT me 16:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on This RFC
Hi, I see you've added yourself to the feedback request service. I'd be really glad if I could receive your valuable comments on the RFC linked above. Thank you! Rollingcontributor (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion has now been closed. You may now remove this section. Thank you! Rollingcontributor (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Lucy DeCoutere
I put semi-protection on the article a few hours ago to clamp down on drive-by IP assassination, but I see that the most recent revert was done by an "autoconfirmed" editor who came back just for that purpose after having not made a single edit to Wikipedia for almost nine months prior — and one of the IPs registered a brand new user name just to throw an allegation of biased editing at me on my user page. So, particularly given the autoconfirmed user, I'm soliciting opinions on whether I should escalate the page protection to full admin-only or not — I'd prefer not to, if at all possible, but I'm not sure what other choice we have if sleeper accounts are waking up just to attack her. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind. The same sleeper undid your revert after I posted this comment, so I've gone forward with full protection for one week. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Masturbation redirects listed at Redirects for discussion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masterbated and Masterbatory. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I already did though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had noticed that. Blanket hit everyone that participated in the previous discussion, so it could in no way give the impression of selective notification. Best Regards, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:British Empire
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You referenced an edit by Callmesir7 in one of your diffs in the SPI report for Fangusu. Do you suspect that editor is a sock as well? (I mean, that edit was their only edit; it may be inconclusive right now due to lack of evidence, but I was just wondering.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've observed it's one of Fangusu's patterns to restore edits which have already been reverted, and they're not always her edits, so I don't think it would be right to retroactively declare Callmesir7 a sock. CU would be stale, but I requested to confirm a technical link with the more recent socks just to be sure. Bbb23 seemed to think the behavioural evidence was enough. I'm sure it helps that Fangusu came swooping in on an IP to defend the sock within minutes of me opening the SPI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Your e-mail
I need an unblock request from the user to act.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirect categorization
Hi Ivanvector! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you. Good faith! Paine 21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Need Help Redirect and my most recent talk topic cannot find response--Redirect discussions confusing to me.
Sorry, but the redirect causes confusion for me. I find it necessary to start another discussion. I have all of the most recent info re: harry dennis (musician) after receiving updated information from him directly. I would like for the text box at the top of the page with the "warnings" to be removed. All of the info is linked or referenced to a point as not to oversaturate the page with info. Other information is self-reporting from my interview(s) with Mr. Dennis. Will you or someone remove the box that precedes the info because it is distracting to readers and in someway suggest that info is false or misleading. Harry Dennis is affiliated and knows the most notable personalities, musicians, dis, etc. in house music. When I learn how to insert images, I will insert a couple to support his information. Please respond to back directly to me because I may not find your answer in redirects. Thank you. --DA01 21:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLOFT01 (talk • contribs)
Does the autosearch subvert hit counts for redirects?
Hi Ivanvector,
I have been thinking the last couple of days, about Shlivovitz. I've decided to !vote for a weak keep for it, but the surprise to me is really that it got literally zero hits before the discussion at RfD. You would think it would get a few, since it's a fairly obvious misspelling. And not even any bot hits.
It set me wondering, does the "autosearch" – I don't know the official name for this, but if you type a search in the Mozilla taskbar or another dropdown like that – does it automatically take you through the redirect without registering a hit for the redirect?
Since it detects and displays redirect titles, it obviously has some nous to the fact it's a redirect to another article (how clever its parsing is, I have no idea). If it then of its own volition performs the redirect, rather than letting the WP/Wikipmedia server do it, then no hit count would appear in the page request log.
If my premiss is right, this would mean we could never trust the stats for a redirect of itself because we don't know how many have been pre-empted, if that's the right word, by the autosearch sending to the target page. This of course benefits our readers (and HTTP servers) in not round-tripping via a redirect, but leaves us with queer stats for how many hits it gets.
The telling point, I think, – and both you and I have alluded to this in past RfD discussions – if is you hit a redirect for something but the page says it was redirected from somewhere else (or does not say it was redirected at all). I've not paid close attention to this.
You're better at this than I am, so perhaps a few words in the right places to the Wikimedia folks would clarify this? In the meantime, I am suspicious of obvious misspellings/alternative spellings and Rs without diacritics and so forth that are recorded as getting no hits.
Best as always Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)