User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ivanvector. 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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sanctioned!

Hi, Ivan. While researching a user, I happened to notice this old edit by you from November. "If it is determined to be sanctionable"? LOL, you're funny. All right then, you're blocked! :-) And thank you for alerting the user, always useful. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

Ouch! That WP:BOOMERANG sure got some good hang time! If I recall, there was a discussion here or there afterwards about when it's appropriate to place DS notices, and whether or not I should be adding any of this to the log, and eventually I just thought that more experienced users should probably be the ones placing these notices, rather than me on my typical ANI drive-bys. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good hang time, lol. But don't say that, you're fine placing alert templates on anybody who has been editing a topic under discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. (Community discretionary sanction templates are thornier, not that you need to refrain there either, but it takes more practice.) Of course one often does it when one has some concern, or why bother, but please note that the templates themselves say "This message..bla bla.. does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date". So you're not accusing anybody of anything by placing the template. (Indeed, POV-pushers who get the template frequently post it right back on their adversary, and this too is allowed.) It does not need to be logged. Actually I think it may be automagically logged somewhere in cyberheaven, since there's a lot of fuss about placing it unmodified etc. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

Here it is. Basically, don't make entries in the log because the software handles it automatically. Or, as you said. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Johnuniq knows everything, and double everything where code is concerned. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

Well...

After I did this, I noticed you did this. Oh well, I tried! Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You beat me to it is all, I have the create window open in another tab ;) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil (lion) AfD

As a frequent contributor to the Talk page had no idea this was going on. First I knew was your edit in edit history on main page last evening. I can see now it was at the top of the page but never saw it in contents list. I had commented with my 'keep but change the name' under "Major tourist attraction and citation needed"? [[here]. Shame really. My fault for not looking. That'll learn me! Selector99 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the talk page reflects the earlier discussion in the first Afd, and yeah, Afds are advertised in the article but not on the talk page until after they conclude. Maybe that's a fault in our process. I closed the third AfD really only because the first was well-attended, and the subsequent two seemed to be sour grapes. Also the second may have been malformed because it didn't pick up the first, as a result of the subsequent page move. I share concerns that the article should be about the killing event rather than about Cecil himself, since that's what's being covered, but since it had been addressed already in the first AfD I didn't think that raising it again was constructive. It'll probably be worth bringing up again in a few weeks when the news cycle moves on to something else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt, full and understanding reply. I'll keep an eye out and perhaps raise the matter again as you suggest. Selector99 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ignore all rules/TheShortVersion

Speaking after the fact, but by all means delete the page. I have no recollection of it: it probably existed due to the pace of edits to the talk page at that time. 0x69494411 17:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting an user about creating No indication of significance

Hello Ivanvector,

I would like to report an user on Wikipedia who is creating articles by using bare URLs and URLs from gossip type websites to create an misunderstanding view on the Wikipedia patrolling team. The user name is : JithDominicJose04. Due to this reason i reported for speedy deletion of articles created by that user.

Please go through the articles he created and go through the references, you can surely find out that there's no such importance of that articles and also the references used are for misunderstanding Wikipedia team.

Thank you, I will take a look. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

AIN

Sorry, I was getting rid of that thread without realising I wasn't authorised to do this. --Rubbish computer 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't realize at the time that it was you that removed it, I thought it might have been removed accidentally by someone else. It happens sometimes. Archiving is better at ANI because archives can be searched. I think page histories can be searched too, using external tools, but I don't know. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games redirects

We've edit conflicted, so here's what I was going to say. Redirects to merged templates are often kept so that transclusions are shown in old revisions of articles. However, I don't think that the two "infobox" redirects have ever seen much use; they can be safely deleted. I orphaned Template:Commonwealth Games earlier, which was used in articles that had nothing to do with the Commonwealth Games - feel free to point it to the navbox. Alakzi (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and belated apologies for the dramah earlier. I was going through these earlier when I was comparing navboxes for a discussion at Template talk:Olympic Games. I might suggest that Template:Commonwealth Games years be moved over the redirect to be consistent with the other sporting events, since it's orphaned now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that was entirely my fault. (And, just for the record, my comment there wasn't directed at you.) Moving it to Template:Commonwealth Games instead sounds like a good idea. Alakzi (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking from some experience, it's an uphill battle to convince users to improve the deeply-entrenched and often offensive jargon in use on this site, no matter how correct your reasoning is. Kudos to you for trying anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember that. I recall that one editor thought that "watcher" was offensive, but not "stalker" - which I never quite understood. Alakzi (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your Question in eswiki

Hi Ivanvector, during RC patrolling I came across your question concerning unblock inquiries. Generally, the unblock requests are are applied via the user's talk page, which is normally open to the user at his first block for exactly this purpose. As a later step the ability to write the own talk page can be denied in case of continued severe vandalism activities as there are

1. use of the own talk page to continue the discussion which led to the block,
2. use of the own talk page for breach of netiquette, especially against other users,
3. activation of further sleeper sock puppets,
4. continued erasure of the own talk page.

Of course, the user is unable to set up an unblock request at this state, but in fact, considering the situation, such a request would not have any chance of success, the user had exhausted any legal means prior to that. Best regards, --Jkbw (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your contributions . Much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

easycore

Hi. I think you made some really great points over there at the deletion discussion. Its not a Majority vote. Its been re-listed. I would assume that any time some has new points to make they would also state if they are for or against. Delete or Keep. Its clear I commented above and also each time its been re-listed I didnt have a duplicate "vote" I shared more helpful points, and also re-stated an opinion, with new points. Again what you added is pretty Great. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's generally not how it works. By convention (but not necessarily a rule) editors only vote (by placing a bolded "keep" or "delete" comment) once in a discussion; it's assumed that your subsequent comments are in support of your original argument. Or, if someone else's comment leads you to change your mind (happens sometimes) then it's standard practice to strike your original vote and place a new one. Putting multiple bolded votes in a discussion makes it look like more editors are siding with you in the discussion when really it's just you voting multiple times. Closers are supposed to read the discussion for consensus and not just count votes, but when a closer sees a discussion with 12 "delete" votes and 3 "keep" votes, they're likely to interpret that as consensus to delete, even if one editor put down 10 of those delete votes. To me personally it's not a big deal because it's up to closers to do their jobs and read the discussions, and we have processes like deletion review for when they get it wrong, but there are some editors who really take offense to multiple voting and will try to get you in trouble for doing it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a Lot for explaining that. I just learned from an Administrator and also Editor that I could use the word "comment" I thought it was only two choices of "delete" or "keep". Like I commented with the other editor and administrator I really think wikipedia is great when through discussion a person can learn something new, even a nuance. Thanks a lot (for explaining/clarifying that) and have a nice day. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)