| Revision as of 04:27, 13 August 2017 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,670,244 edits →Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:14, 12 January 2025 edit undoIvanvector (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,274 edits →IP sock puppet evasion: re | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{nobots}} | ||
| {{trout me}} | {{trout me}} | ||
| {{User:Ivanvector/Protection notice}} | |||
| {{Ombox | |||
| | type = speedy | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = {{large|'''SCAM WARNING!'''}} | |||
| If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are <u>'''not legitimate'''</u> and you should contact '''''{{no spam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}''''' immediately. Please see ] for more information. | |||
| | style = border-width: 1px; | |||
| }} | |||
| <!-- User talk header added by subst'ing the {{Usertalksuper}} template, modifying with new instructions. --> | <!-- User talk header added by subst'ing the {{Usertalksuper}} template, modifying with new instructions. --> | ||
| {{tmbox |image=] |text='''''Welcome to my talk page!'''''<br> | {{tmbox |image=] |text='''''Welcome to my talk page!'''''<br> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 16: | ||
| * Thanks for stopping by! | * Thanks for stopping by! | ||
| }}<!-- from 'subst:Usertalksuper' --> | |||
| {{wikibreak | |||
| | message = | |||
| Because of ], '''{{ROOTPAGENAME}}''' will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing enthusiastically on weekends (except when doing yardwork). {{#switch:{{{schoolcomputer}}}|yes|yes='''{{ROOTPAGENAME}}''' may respond to messages also during school breaks (such as lunch), using a computer at the school.}}{{#if: | '''{{ROOTPAGENAME}}''' will be back full-time on .}} {{#ifeq: holiday|Break|However, since ] is out at the moment, this message does not apply.|{{ns:0}}}} | |||
| | image = School.svg | |||
| | cats= | | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{tmbox |image=] |text=''']''' Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do ''not'' use {{tl|ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification.}} | |||
| {{archives|banner=yes}} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| | archiveprefix=User talk:Ivanvector/Archive | | archiveprefix=User talk:Ivanvector/Archive | ||
| | age=504 | | age=504 | ||
| | header={{aan}} | | header={{aan}} | ||
| | numberstart= |
| numberstart=13 | ||
| | maxarchsize=100000 | | maxarchsize=100000 | ||
| | minkeepthreads=5 | | minkeepthreads=5 | ||
| | format= %%i | | format= %%i | ||
| | archivebox= |
| archivebox=no | ||
| | search=yes | |||
| | box-advert=yes | |||
| | box-separator=no | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Happy Adminship Anniversary!== | |||
| == About Arise from Darkness == | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| <div style="display: flex; align-items: center; padding: 0.2em 1em; border: solid 7px orchid; background-color: yellow;">] '''Wishing ] a very on behalf of the ]! Best wishes!''' ] (]) 22:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, hoping you're doing great. | |||
| ]</div> | |||
| I wrote my draft of the translation of Arise from darkness. | |||
| Thanking you in advance take a look. | |||
| ] | |||
| Stay tuned. | |||
| Greetings. | |||
| --] (]) 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.--] (]) 03:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello {{ul|Androveritas}}. I have reviewed the translation you posted and the situation behind the article protection, and my opinion is that the article cannot be created at this time. The article was previously deleted due to involvement of editors who hide the fact that they are hired to edit, and so they are banned from editing. It appears to me from your user page that you are also connected to the site freelancer.com and a person there who writes Misplaced Pages articles for hire. If you are being paid to write articles on Misplaced Pages you are required to say who your employer is or who is paying you for your services. Please see ] and ]. If you wish to discuss this matter further please post a note at the ]. Thank you. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 70095 --> ] (]) 04:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 70926 --> ] (]) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – August 2017 == | |||
| ] from the past month (July 2017). | |||
| ] | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| :] ] • ] • ] <sup>(] to reach ])</sup> | |||
| :] ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}} | |||
| :* Following a series of discussions around ], the WMF is helping implement a controlled ] as a research experiment, similar to the one ]. You can learn more about the research plan at ]. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined. | |||
| --] (]) 07:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* A ], regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (]). | |||
| :* An ] (]) is currently open that proposes expanding ] to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through ]. | |||
| == 2025 Canadian federal election == | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| :* ] should ] to the English Misplaced Pages. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account. | |||
| :* The new version of is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes , an improved , among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on and provide general feedback at ]. | |||
| Howdy. I'll start an RFC at the ] page, if you'll formulate the RFC question. ] (]) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :{{yo|GoodDay}} I'm confused. I think you just wrote that we don't need another RFC, but you're here saying I should start one, after I ''also'' tried to say that this doesn't need to be settled now since it'll all change in a few months anyway. I'm fully on board with respecting the result of the 2021 discussion until there's a reason to believe that something has changed, I'm just pushing for internal consistency in the article. {{ul|Simonm223}} is the one suggesting we should push an RFC now, maybe you should ask him. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| ::The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. ] (]) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| :::That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to an editor with a minor disagreement over this utterly insignificant point. Although one of their recent comments did seem like they're coming to this with an unreasonably positive view of the PPC's standing in 2025. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| ::{{tps}} It's true, while Ivanvector and I know each other and are friends we don't ''always'' agree on Misplaced Pages topics. I suggested an RFC mostly because it seems like the argument is going around in circles regarding the interpretation of a four-year-old RfC. It seems like, if people are going to make this urgent, then a refreshed consensus makes sense. However I have no strong feelings one way or the other on including minor parties on the page TBH. ] (]) 20:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:MusikAnimal@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=792377201 --> | |||
| == |
== Talking about Juno cast == | ||
| *{{pagelinks|Juno (film)}} | |||
| I'm |
Look @], all I'm saying is, Juno is the mother of Juno's child, she's been pregnant for nine months ] (]) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :{{yo|BigstoneonWiki}} I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. It just doesn't need to be said that Juno is the mother of her own child. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Vanamonde93}} ] is my summary, plus also ]. In a nutshell, when there's absolutely no other reason to delete other than that a page is old is simply unproductive and petty deletionism, and smacks of elitism by "experienced" quality-policing editors. Every time I've asked why old drafts need to be summarily deleted in this way, the only responses I've gotten back have already been covered by other speedy deletion criteria, such as drafts which are unambiguous advertising, drafts which contain copyright violations, drafts which duplicate existing topics, drafts violating ], or drafts about topics which don't meet inclusion criteria. All of these can be deleted through extant, mature processes, and all of them can and ''should'' be deleted without waiting six months. G13 as a wrapper for these other criteria doesn't work because it tacks on a six month wait for no reason, and G13 as a standalone criterion doesn't work because age is not a deletion criterion. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, I don't want to argue with you, I just saying ] (]) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, that's food for thought, thanks. Personally I've always just seen it as a "spring cleaning" criterion, if you will, to throw away the stuff nobody cares about any more; and the rationale behind ''that'' I've always assumed is that the drafts clog up the servers; but I might be wrong about that last bit, in which case I imagine the criterion is not needed. What do we know about that? Is the sheer quantity of drafts a problem or not? ] (]) 16:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that drafts clogging the servers is not a problem. Even if it is, deleting drafts doesn't free up server space, because "deleted" pages are not physically removed from storage. They're simply flagged as deleted in the underlying database, which actually makes the database a few bytes larger (recording deletion information and such). ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well then (if I may play the devil's advocate just a little, to better understand what you are getting at) surely the principle of U5 also applies to the draftspace, (but U5 would not actually cover the draftspace)? ] (]) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, absolutely. If someone creates a page in Draft: space which is clearly not intended to ever be an article, like it's a listing of players on someone's fantasy football team or just a list of links to random Youtubes, I would personally delete it citing U5 anyway per ] if I couldn't find one of the general criteria to fit. On the other hand U5 excepts "plausible drafts", because a user creating a genuine draft of what's intended to be an article is not misusing Misplaced Pages as a web host, it's exactly how Misplaced Pages's collaborative model is supposed to work. If they contribute a notable topic but they don't stick around to "finish" it, that's not really a problem. It's only a problem because some editors have decided that rather than review these drafts to determine what needs to be fixed or which ones are unsalvageable and should be deleted, a daunting task for sure, they'd rather delete them ''en masse'' without any kind of review process at all. | |||
| :::::Personally I think a better long-term solution to this issue is to deprecate Draft: space and ] entirely, and just rely on ] to filter new content. If we didn't have draft space, all new articles would land in mainspace, where articles that aren't up to inclusion or content standards are rapidly corrected or deleted. What are we really doing with drafts? We're just making a space for topics which would and should be deleted as articles but can languish forever as drafts, because, I don't know, why? Because a topic that doesn't demonstrate notability now might change a few months from now? If content shouldn't be here in six months, it shouldn't be here now. Besides, it's better to tackle these issues when the articles are new, when the editors are likely to still be around. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'd disagree with you about the draftspace/userspace-as-draftspace: it's where I send the unfortunately common newbies with lots of enthusiasm (ie they are upset their article was deleted but want to keep working on it) but little competence (the page is a total mess). Occasionally, something productive comes out of them going through AfC or draftspace. I think I can see what you are getting at with the rest of it, though. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you think we need is to expand the definition of U5 to cover the draftspace, and abolish G13 altogether (and there would be no need for G14). Technically I imagine U5 applied to non-userspace would make a general criterion, so really we should abolish U5 ''and'' G13, and write a new G13 covering deletions of improbably drafts, in whichever space they are. If you proposed something like this, I'd probably support. ] (]) 09:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Inquiry on the eligibility of a page on Requests for page protection/Increase: Difference between revisions == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] has been subject to routine vandalism every month. Which you said doesn't qualify for it. Just to confirm, is this actually normal for wikipedia; the page is seriously meant to be like that forever? Random IPs can get their way for months unguarded? ] (]) 07:53, 10 January 2025 (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. ] (]) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|ContributedEditor}} Thanks for your question. One of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles is that it is an encyclopedia that ]. We always consider protection requests against that fundamental principle, and in general we only protect pages in response to active, ongoing disruption, when there is no better solution. Usually that means many disruptive edits by multiple editors in a short period of time, or it can mean a pattern of disruptive editing over a longer period of time. On ] I don't think either of those are happening: you found an error added several weeks earlier (so protection today would not help, in fact it might prevent someone else from fixing other errors), and before that I went back all the way to November to find just one edit that I thought was vandalism. I also don't think there's a pattern here, since the last time the article was protected was all the way back in 2023, and that was only for two days. You can read ] for more on this. Cheers! ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Settle it on the talk page, please. I'll be there in a few minutes. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == IP sock puppet evasion == | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Hello. That block evader ({{IP|2.97.98.195}}, {{IP|2.97.212.207}}) is back again, this time as {{IP|2.97.219.149}}. Their IP addresses geolocate to the UK. Can you please look into this? Thanks, ] (] - ]) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 71838 --> ] (]) 04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Sjones23}} yeah, they pinged me a bunch of times. {{ul|Ad Orientem}} already blocked their latest IP but 48 hours isn't long enough for this vandal. I've added a three month rangeblock, the range is not particularly busy. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:14, 12 January 2025
 | SCAM WARNING!
If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact paid-en-wp wikipedia.org immediately. Please see this page for more information. |
 | Welcome to my talk page!
|
 | Click here to email me. Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do not use {{ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification. |
|
|
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. | |
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Eight years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2025 Canadian federal election
Howdy. I'll start an RFC at the 2025 Canadian federal election page, if you'll formulate the RFC question. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I'm confused. I think you just wrote that we don't need another RFC, but you're here saying I should start one, after I also tried to say that this doesn't need to be settled now since it'll all change in a few months anyway. I'm fully on board with respecting the result of the 2021 discussion until there's a reason to believe that something has changed, I'm just pushing for internal consistency in the article. Simonm223 is the one suggesting we should push an RFC now, maybe you should ask him. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to an editor with a minor disagreement over this utterly insignificant point. Although one of their recent comments did seem like they're coming to this with an unreasonably positive view of the PPC's standing in 2025. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's true, while Ivanvector and I know each other and are friends we don't always agree on Misplaced Pages topics. I suggested an RFC mostly because it seems like the argument is going around in circles regarding the interpretation of a four-year-old RfC. It seems like, if people are going to make this urgent, then a refreshed consensus makes sense. However I have no strong feelings one way or the other on including minor parties on the page TBH. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Talking about Juno cast
Look @Ivanvector, all I'm saying is, Juno is the mother of Juno's child, she's been pregnant for nine months BigStoneonWiki (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BigstoneonWiki: I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. It just doesn't need to be said that Juno is the mother of her own child. Ivanvector (/Edits) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't want to argue with you, I just saying BigStoneonWiki (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Inquiry on the eligibility of a page on Requests for page protection/Increase: Difference between revisions
Gang rape#India has been subject to routine vandalism every month. Which you said doesn't qualify for it. Just to confirm, is this actually normal for wikipedia; the page is seriously meant to be like that forever? Random IPs can get their way for months unguarded? ContributedEditor (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ContributedEditor: Thanks for your question. One of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles is that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We always consider protection requests against that fundamental principle, and in general we only protect pages in response to active, ongoing disruption, when there is no better solution. Usually that means many disruptive edits by multiple editors in a short period of time, or it can mean a pattern of disruptive editing over a longer period of time. On gang rape I don't think either of those are happening: you found an error added several weeks earlier (so protection today would not help, in fact it might prevent someone else from fixing other errors), and before that I went back all the way to November to find just one edit that I thought was vandalism. I also don't think there's a pattern here, since the last time the article was protected was all the way back in 2023, and that was only for two days. You can read WP:PREEMPTIVE for more on this. Cheers! Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
IP sock puppet evasion
Hello. That block evader (2.97.98.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.97.212.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is back again, this time as 2.97.219.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their IP addresses geolocate to the UK. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sjones23: yeah, they pinged me a bunch of times. Ad Orientem already blocked their latest IP but 48 hours isn't long enough for this vandal. I've added a three month rangeblock, the range is not particularly busy. Ivanvector (/Edits) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)