User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Ivanvector. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Educationtemple/Sunil Kumar Verma

Hello Ivanvector. I have worked on this article after it was userfied upon your reco. Could you please have a look and comment? and please let me know what is the next step??? Please see the article here User:Educationtemple/Sunil Kumar Verma Educationtemple (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The ANI...

I write to tell you I appreciate your response on the ANI. You made several good points that hadn't been discussed I wanted to briefly address.

I agree that I do tend to be more verbose than I should be in these discussions. I learned to write in the days before the 140 character limit, and the approach these days is very different. I'm getting there.

I also accept that I can be perceived as out to "right great wrongs." I think my writing tends to come-off a bit bombastic.

My only agenda... well, I have some areas of interest, and one over-arching concept. The areas of interest are abuse of the wiki for PR self-promotion; financial frauds, and frauds generally; and the abuse of statistics in the social sciences. The overarching concept is that I object to bullshit. I think I'm pretty good at detecting bullshit. (A decade and a half investigating frauds, interviewing criminals, and deposing law enforcement officers, combined with an innate mistrust of others, and you start to be able to smell a lie.) I think people in general, including the folks who edit and maintain the wiki, drastically underestimate their susceptibility to manipulation and deceit, as well as the risks posed. Everybody does, or fraudsters wouldn't be able to operate.

BBR23 brought up Joseph Borg. When I saw Joe Borg claiming to have shut-down Stratton-Oakmont, which I know isn't true because I was there, I went through his other claims. I found that, starting with his web page and personal promotional materials, he'd been taking credit, falsely, for faux roles in shutting down major frauds. In a typical example, after other lawyers for other places shut-down and seized a building that had been used to operate a fraud, Borg rode to the building, apparently from Alabama, in a military attack vehicle and upon arrival declared that he and others had taken the building. That made it onto Borg's materials as "Borg led the seizure of... using an all terrain military vehicle." The same language, with very minor variations, appeared in Borg's materials and his page here, with excerpts on the pages for the individual frauds. I look at that and see "You know, the only way this could have happened, is if a politician was trying to take credit for a lot of things he didn't do, and he or his staff went out to journalists (which they have, we've seen this) to push that story in interviews, and the only way the talking points would get on here verbatim is if he and his staff were putting them up themselves."

Maybe I'm over-sensitive; but I think I know a good fraud when I smell one. Djcheburashka (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several over-arching concepts to Wikipedia. One is verifiability, and that is often mistaken as truth, but our meaning here is different. It is in fact a very important distinction - truth is a concept with a wavering definition depending on the observer, but verifiability is concrete. Thus, Wikipedia does not state what is true, Wikipedia can only document what reliable sources say about a thing. When sources disagree, we evaluate the sources for due weight and word our articles accordingly. I suggest to have a look at the essay "verifiability, not truth" for the Wikipedia community's long-established stance on this. My attempt to summarize it, which no doubt will sound brash: what you know is irrelevant. I find that the essay's example of Louis Pasteur and the theory of spontaneous generation is a very good example of this. In Pasteur's time, spontaneous generation was accepted as fact; Wikipedia's article on the subject would have presented it so, citing reliable sources of the time. Had Pasteur come here with the results of his experiments, claiming spontaneous generation false and adjusting the article to fit his results, he would have been immediately reverted and banned from the site, right though he was. Only when independent reliable sources picked up on Pasteur's work and confirmed it could we have adjusted our writing here.

In Borg's example (I adjusted your wikilink to point to the correct person) you removed a significant portion of content which was cited to Forbes, Times of Malta, Birmingham News, and the Alabama Securities Commission, among others. Your rationale, according to the talk page, is that the sources are false, based on your own analysis and things you know to be true. You don't get to make that call. No editor does. Who are you? You're not a reliable source. If you have reliable sources that contradict these sources, you can present them on the article's talk page and suggest that changes are required based on new information. You cannot just remove sources because you think they're wrong or you don't like what they say. If the reliable sources say that Borg shut down Stratton Oakmont, then Wikipedia says that Borg shut down Stratton Oakmont.

The threshold for notability of a claim is always reliable sources. If there is notable controversy about Borg's involvement in the Stratton Oakmont case, then reliable sources will have written about it. Find those sources. The one you gave from FINRA is reliable I'd say, but it doesn't say anything about whether Borg was involved, or the case in Alabama at all. It can't be used as a source to negate Borg's claims. You've made a respectable narrative on Borg's talk page about how investigations proceeding at the national level predate Borg's involvement, so he must have been piggybacking on other regulators' work. What you've done is synthesize different sources into making a narrative that fits your view, and that is not allowed, again, because it is not verifiable. Your own research is not supported by reliable sources.

You may very well be right. It is in fact very true that a politician may have constructed this particular narrative and convinced reliable sources to publish it. It is quite demonstrable that this happens time and time again. I'm from Toronto, I can tell you a thing or two about sources we consider reliable publishing absolute garbage and passing it off as fact. But we don't do that analysis ourselves. If you're convinced that a source is wrong, you can make your case to the reliable sources noticeboard, and if you can show that it is inaccurate, it will likely be removed. (I say likely because RSN, like most other Wikipedia processes, is based on consensus, which is not always what you think it's going to be. Your mileage may vary.)

If all you have is a hunch, or knowledge based on your own personal experience, you're wasting your energy arguing here. If you're convinced you need to set the record straight, go write a book. When your book gets published and reviewed, and journalists or other respected authorities on this topic confirm your work, then it will be verifiable. When someone here comes across that, they will fix the article. Until that happens, what our article says about Borg will be considered right, by our standards.

It's also true that editors here are very sensitive about biographies of living persons, because we are required to be. If you edit disruptively in that topic area you will very quickly find yourself blocked, and BLP transgressions are not forgiven easily.

I'm not saying this to be rude, or to discourage you from editing. There is certainly a place here for an editor with an eye for puffery, but you must follow our rules or you will get nowhere. Your discussions reveal an "I'm right, now you have to prove me wrong" attitude which is not constructive here. If you don't believe that is your attitude, consider that several uninvolved editors (such as myself) have now told you this, and reflect on your contributions. Or consider that if you continue along this path and it results in you being blocked, we will simply restore the article to how it was before you edited, complete with all the verifiable mistruths.

I want to make one more point about civility. There is an allegation at AN/I that you have been following Roscelese, interrupting her discussions and gathering evidence in an effort to discredit her contributions. Personally, I see the evidence of that as very weak (and I said so) but I want to tell you that if you are in fact doing that, just stop, now. I am guessing that in your legal experience there is a place for casting the character of your opposition into doubt in order to weaken their testimony, but there is no place for that here, at all. You must assume good faith unless you have very good evidence (not a hunch) of bad faith.

I hope that this makes sense, because it took me an awfully long time to write. To summarize, in order to be successful here, you will likely need to abandon your notion of "truth" and accept Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. It is not optional or open to interpretation. I do hope that you continue to edit, keeping this in mind.

Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your taking the time. Yes, it all makes sense.

Regarding "following Roscelese" -- not exactly. When the "edit war" began, I wanted to see what the deal was, so I looked at her page. I found all these warnings for stuff that seemed really similar to what I was experiencing. I didn't know who she was or what the sides were on these issues. So I started to look through some of her edits and what gave rise to the warnings. In most cases, I thought her contributions made perfect sense, or were within how I understand the wiki is supposed to work. So, cool. I also, however, found several instances in which there's a pattern I find disturbing: One or two editors will "camp" on a page, and a series of editors will comment about POV issues. Each time, however, the "camping" editors will very quickly accuse the new editor of POV, and disruption, because they're violating "the consensus." Everyone new who tries to come to the page gets bullied off, so at any given moment it seems like there's a consensus, when really there isn't. This seemed to always be about what, for lack of a term less likely to get me accused of something, I'll call "women's rights issues 80% of the way to the end of a broad spectrum." What I did when I found those, was add my comment to the effect that I agreed with the outside editor -- the point being, that the next time an issue arose, it would be harder to claim "consensus." I understand that there's some controversy caused by "mens rights movement" people, and I understand why we would object to that and find it disruptive. But that doesn't have anything to do with me, and I don't think showing POV by vandals demonstrates that the article is NPOV or unbiased to begin with.

Regarding Joe Borg, do all such issues have to go to the WP:RSN noticeboard? Can't I use the article talk pages, as I did in this case?

Also -- how do I prove a negative? Someone puts up a claim, citing a profile-piece on Borg from, say, 2012, which is about something that occurred in 1996. The record from 1996, though, doesn't refer to Borg. As you say If there is notable controversy about Borg's involvement in the Stratton Oakmont case, then reliable sources will have written about it. But there is no notable controversy. The claim appeared in the "Alabama Business Journal" profile piece, and nearly verbatim on, I think five, wiki pages. That's it.

The cites to the Wall St. Journal and Forbes did not support the claim on the wiki article. There's a big gap between "Joe Borg was part of a task force of state attorneys' generals that sued Stratton Oakmont," which is surely true and what the Forbes and Wall St. J said; and "Joe Borg formed and led a task force of state attorneys whose investigation uncovered Stratton Oakmont's fraud and led to it and others prosecutions," which is what the wiki page said.

I think with Joe Borg, on the talk page I went through the record regarding the claims. The claim was, as I recall, that Borg had put together a task-force that led to the investigation and arrest of Belfort, because of complaints Borg received after taking office. The important part of the claim is causation, that a-led-to-be-led-to-c. I found WP:RS -- consisting of contemporaneous documents -- showing that (a) Belfort had been under investigation for 5 years prior to Borg having taken office; (b) Borg's task force was assembled at the conclusion of those other investigations, not before them; and (c) the event that led to Belfort's criminal arrest, was when the FBI (led by an AUSA who, contemporaneous sources said, had been investigating Belfort for five years) obtained the cooperation of a confidential informant. I also cited editorials in the NY Times and Wall St. J., and an interview on Bloomberg TV available on the web, by the lead AUSA who investigated and prosecuted Belfort, the SEC attorney who led their team regarding Belfort, and the FINRA receiver who took over Stratton Oakmont. None of them mention Borg's task force.

Is that not enough regarding the claim of causation? Is the issue that it should be taken to WP:RSN rather than the talk page?

This is coming up on a related page, Jordan Belfort. Belfort's memoir says that he went to work at L.F. Rothschild as a stockbroker trainee, then was laid-off following Black Monday, and then after that was taught about penny stocks, and after that founded Stratton Oakmont. This storyline is rather key to the portrayal of Belfort's character. It's so key that it became a memorable scene with Matthew Mcwhateverahey playing an L.F. Rothschild broker in the movie. The idea is that Belfort was a legitimate guy who went bad because of temptation and then got redeemed, and really wasn't different than other Wall St. people. The same FINRA document above shows, though, that Stratton Oakmont was founded six months before Black Monday. I think the FINRA document is WP:RS as to when Stratton Oakmont was founded.

Is that not enough to be able to say on the wiki article that the story of Rothschild-then-Black-Monday-then-penny-stocks-then-SO, as told in the memoir and repeated widely, is false?

The question of whether Belfort's memoir is true or another fraud is itself noteable. Its been the subject of numerous articles in the NY Times (including several editorials and at least one op-ed), the Wall St. J, slate.com, and is discussed at least briefly in many of the pieces covering Belfort or the movie.

Thank you again for your help and advice. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed that you had replied. My talk page has been unusually busy the past few days.

With respect to Joseph Borg, as far as I can tell the sources you suggest only back up that there was a federal investigation, and that it occurred prior to the start of Borg's investigation. The missing link that is not supported by sources is that Borg's task force resulted from the federal investigation - even if it did, we can't publish that previously-unpublished POV. In this case, I'm by no means an expert, and if you wanted to you could take it up with RSN. You should try to take it up with the talk page first (it's considered polite) but I think you've done that already. My observation, as someone not particularly involved, is that the timeline and exact factual accuracy of Borg's own claims in relation to Stratton Oakmont and the federal investigation, is irrelevant - I don't mean that it's not important, but the fact that you have to compile these sources and draw connections between them to establish it (more accurately, the fact this hasn't been done by an external source already) means that it's just not important. And again, I mean not considered important by reliable sources, which is what we use as the benchmark of inclusion here. If Borg claims he was instrumental and reliable sources repeat the claim (and others don't refute it) we have no choice - we go by the sources.

Not all sourcing issues need to go to RSN, it's merely there for that purpose, for getting a neutral second look at sourcing. It is often useful for resolving disputes, but it is not a court of last resort. Typically, an editor will present a statement and ask for an opinion on whether the source(s) support(s) that statement. It's not normally used to review entire articles or sections, though.

On Belfort's article, of course there is significant controversy over the accuracy of his memoir - it is highly suspect, and reliable sources say so. However we typically don't devote an entire article to calling out controversies about a person - even if it's true, doing so casts a negative view on the article. A good and relevant example is Bernie Madoff - most of the article is simply about him - facts presented neutrally without any sort of commentary, other than what might be offered by sources if it's relevant. Of course there are many details included about his massive fraud, but it's not up to us to paint him as a liar and criminal - if we present the reliably sourced information in a neutral manner, we will mirror whatever picture the reliable sources paint.

Probably more importantly, if we present negative articles about living persons where we are making negative claims that can't be backed up by very good sourcing, we open ourselves to legal action because we are in fact publishing unverifiable slander, which I'm sure you know is against the law in many jurisdictions. This is a big part of why even articles about people who are demonstrably very bad persons (not naming anyone because doing so would definitely violate policy) are presented in very neutral light. And we err on the side of caution.

Regarding this edit at Dasha Zhukova, you were rightly criticized for doing this, because you changed a neutral and accurate summary of the article with one which was unduly negative. The neutral lead gives reasons (supported in the article) why she is known, with no commentary. Yours suggests that she is known just for being the girlfriend of another person, and casts an unnecessary allegation in Wikipedia's voice that her entire career is a fabrication. You might believe that but we can't say it. Saying "she is described as..." makes a suggestion that she is in reality not those things, and "none of Ms. Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence" is an entirely unsourced negative statement which seems to back up the (also unsourced) implied assertion that she has no career. If a source publishes that (and in very clear language that that is their intended meaning) then we can repeat it, but we can't be the original publisher of that thought (or any thought for that matter).

One more thing, because I see this continuing to come up: WP:BRD means "bold, revert, discuss". It is typically the first step in the consensus building process here. In a number of instances, I've observed that you make a WP:BOLD edit, often with rationale presented on the talk page, and that's fine. However, when another editor disagrees and reverts your edit, that is also fine - it's the way things are done here. It is then up to them or you to engage in a discussion about the edit and the disagreement which led to the revert, so that you and the other editor can come to an understanding. What I see you doing is immediately reverting the revert, and that is the start of an edit war, and other editors are rightly put off by it. I suggest you attempt to meet common ground with someone who reverts your edit, as a first step. If they fail to respond in a reasonable amount of time then you can assume that their objection is without justification, but also keep in mind that there is no deadline.

Again, I hope this helps. Ivanvector (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. In particular about WP:BRD... I did not know that.

A couple things... You say The missing link that is not supported by sources is that Borg's task force resulted from the federal investigation - even if it did, we can't publish that previously-unpublished POV. But my edits don't assert that the federal investigation caused the task force. My edit only removes the contention that the task force caused the investigation to be successful. Put another way, I'm not asserting a causal sequence -- I'm disputing a claim of causation. I'm content if the article says nothing about causation. I only object to an assertion or insinuation of causation that's contradicted by the facts. Given that distinction -- do you agree with the Joe Borg stuff?

Bernie Madoff is actually an interesting example. Bernie's very different from Belfort in that Bernie doesn't have a paid PR team on the outside of prison trying to sell a memoir. There is a different issue with Bernie's page, which is that there are groups not affiliated with Bernie who are currently struggling very intensely to influence public opinion as they struggle over the allocation of professional fees (to the tune of a few billion).

Does it solve some of these issues if claims are simply removed? WP:V doesn't require that everything said in a typically reliable source be included in an article.

Regarding we open ourselves to legal action because we are in fact publishing unverifiable slander, which I'm sure you know is against the law in many jurisdictions, my view is actually quite the opposite:

Its very American to assert that verifiability relates to slander. That's the American perspective, that truth or a belief in truth or a good faith attempt to find the truth are a complete defense to an accusation of defamation. This is something so built into our culture it doesn't occur to us that it might actually be unique to us. Anyway, if we're going to take the American perspective, then the wiki has no liability at all because of CDA 230. And if the subject is notable, then the test for whether an editor could have committed defamation would require that they were reckless as to truth or falsehood, which means (basically) that they consciously did not care whether what they said was true or false.

If we don't take the American perspective, though, then verifiability doesn't matter. In many places they still say "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." Verifiability is, as I understand it, not a defense to defamation in China, in India, or in countries applying Islamic law, which together account for half the population of the planet. Nor is truth always a defense to defamation claims in the U.K., or under EU law. (I just don't know the answer for South America, Russia, or parts of Africa.)

If we did care about things like publication liability outside the United States (which I don't think anyone actually does), then we should be checking things like whether our WP:RS relied on a source that was obtained consistent with foreign law. Because that would actually be the test in many jurisdictions. For example, if we repeated something from a news article in an American newspaper that was sourced to a private e-mail that was transmitted in Germany but disclosed in American litigation, that might well be a violation of German criminal law. But, I don't think we actually do care about these things.

Djcheburashka (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, with Joe Borg, I don't agree. I see where you're going, and my analysis was possibly incorrect. Disputing the claim of causation is fine, but the problem is you are disputing it based on your own research. It's good research, but it's still your own, and not published in a reliable source. WP:V doesn't require everything to be included, but WP:NPOV does require all reliably published viewpoints to be considered, so no, you can't just remove reliably-sourced claims that you disagree with; that's cherrypicking. If a reliable source publishes the claim, and no reliable source disputes it, then it goes in. You could challenge the reliability of the source, which is where the RS noticeboard would be of use. You might find more editors there with a sense of detecting PR promo pieces than I do (I tend to give sources leniency in this area unless they are obvious press releases, but many others don't) and you might find more supportive voices. Or at least, more comprehensive advice than I'm able to give on the subject.

Your analysis of the international legal interpretations of slander is over my head, to be honest. I'm not sure about CDA 230 with Creative Commons licensing in effect here; it's my (not particularly informed) understanding that all submissions here are considered to be published by the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than by the user who clicked the "save page" button, and I think it would be a stretch to claim that Wikipedia is an internet service provider (though maybe that's not required, I'm not very familiar with CDA 230). At any rate, the biography of living persons policy follows from recommendations of the WMF's legal team (as I understand it) and that's good enough for me.

In terms of what's acceptable as general notability and neutrality go, something I found immensely helpful when starting out here was following and participating in articles for deletion discussions. It's a good way to see how more experienced users formulate articles based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and what general thresholds are considered for notability and verifiability. Just a thought. Ivanvector (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment to re-write

The comments of @Ivanvector from the week-end suggest that the last two sections of the History section at Ukraine are far too long. This seems an accurate summation and the shortened edit would reduce the size by half titled: Euromaidan, Crimea, and the Secession Crisis. The short version is on Talk:Ukraine. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'm busy at the moment but I'll take a look when I have a bit more time. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Still a hearty no. Ivanvector (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert

I object to your refactoring and as per WP:REFACTOR, you should revert it. The hatting usage notes to follow WP:REFACTOR. I request that you revert it. Tutelary (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done as noted at ANI. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright

Goes both ways. You reject refactoring so I won't redo it. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I get your point about duplicate !voting and I'll see if there's a way that I can rewrite those comments to be more clear. I mean, I think it's pretty clear where I stand on this, but I'll try to straighten it out. Ivanvector (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Bill Truth

Re your post on his talk page, as far as I'm aware he's not actually posted in regard to homeopathy - just other fringe 'alt med' stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, then that base is covered, I guess. It was my interpretation that Essiac falls under homeopathy. If not then I've made a mistake, but the alert is valid nonetheless. Alerts are not meant to imply misconduct, in fact the alert template specifically says so. Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this at ANI. Please examine the docs at {{alert}}—the only thing to do is place the correct alert template while putting a heading like "Notification" before it, and a signature after it. Looking at your edit shows "(Tag: discretionary sanctions alert)" which is the magic used to record the fact that a user has been notified. In typical fashion, the docs give a warm glow rather than the facts, but there must not be a separate log of the notification, so please undo your edit. There is no need to worry about whether the alert should have been posted, or whether it should be unposted—there is no procedure for that. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. I've undone the edit and I'll pay better attention to the procedure if I'm inspired to use the alert function again. Ivanvector (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hotter than July (album)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hotter than July (album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Ivanvector, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, Vjmlhds 16:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Smooth Island

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smooth Island (Ontario); someone's given the article a complete rewrite. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 09:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Information for Autism Research Institute

Hello and thank you for your comments at Redirects for Discussion on Autism Research Institute. As I mentioned there, I work for ARI and now that the DAN! page has been renamed to Autism Research Institute, I'm hoping that editors such as yourself will help add more material to explain what ARI is and does. The page now still really focuses on DAN! and only describes ARI as having created that initiative, whereas it is an organization that continues to be active following the end of DAN! Knowing that it is not best for me to make any edits myself, I've provided a few pieces of information at Talk:Autism Research Institute about ARI that could be added, along with links to third-party references for them. Would you mind taking a look? Thank you, Difulton (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Difulton! I will take a look when I have some time. Ivanvector (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Samira Samii

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Worldchampion2014.

HALLO IVAN, Me as a Iranian-German is really sad someone make Samira SAMII wikipedi page with lots of wrong information. SAMII´s are a famous family in iran... why I can not edit anything in her page. why the article of Mahdavikia are in her page.. why they edit worng resident in her page... what is a picture??? Please answer me as an export user — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Hello MaxXXX-max, and welcome to Wikipedia. Recently, an anonymous user made changes to the article that did not follow our policy on pages about living people and those changes had to be changed back. We have a rule that all pages about living people have to have the best information. Because anonymous users were making changes that broke the rule, the page on Samira Samii has been protected for a little while. Since you're a new user you won't be able to make changes to the page, but you can make a request by asking at Talk:Samira Samii. I hope this helps. Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) IVAN, thanks for your Massage... can you please change the SMAIRA SAMII resident... she is living in Monte Carlo SAMIRA SAMII is also doesn't like to talk about Mahdavikia- She said in all her interviews this is her privacy... tats why it would be great if you delete FOCUS.DE article. SAMIRA SAMII is coming from well-known family. (Noble Family of Persia) She is permian-german not Iranian-German. She is famous i soccer Business and she has her own home-Page with many articles which you can find as a administrator.... Please remove all article about Mahdavikia because this is shame for us as person people to our SAMIRA SAMII - Person which we proud of her in IRAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Why anyone can help me???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Hi again MaxXXX-max. You're likely to get a faster answer to your questions if you ask on the talk page for the article, at Talk:Samira Samii. I see that you've posted your request in a few different places. Samira has contacted Wikipedia already to ask that her article be deleted and we are discussing the request, according to our guidelines. The article can't be deleted in the meantime. Our policy says that we can't change information about a person unless there is a reliable source, and it looks like the part about Mahdavikia has reliable sources, so I can't remove it. If you have a source that says something different, then please let me know, but I'm not allowed to make that kind of change just because you don't like the article. Also, just so you know, I'm not an administrator, I'm just an editor like you, although I've been editing the encyclopedia longer. Let me know if you have more questions. Ivanvector (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Ivan, I can not understand your comment in SamiraSamii deletion... see this link: http://www.samirasamii.com/en/ It snot nice to used the publicity PUBLIC FIGURS or famous people like Samira SAMII to use for Wikipedia in wrong from.... Anyway she warns everyone and her fans... Delete all Mahdavikia´s Article and picture with Fadi Merze and correct the Residence... I really wanna speedy deletion of her page... Its unfair what the user do it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC) @Jasmin-Shams and MaxXXX-max: I think that you do not understand that we only have information that comes from sources that we trust. You say that it is wrong, but you do not provide proof, and proof is needed. I think it might help you to read a guideline from other language Wikipedias: on reliable sources: in Simple English (Reliable Sources) or Arabic (ويكيبيديا:مصادر موثوق بها) on verifiability: in Simple English (Verifiability), German (Belege) or Arabic (ويكيبيديا:إمكان التحقق) our policy on pages about living people: in Arabic (ويكيبيديا:سير الأحياء) or German (Artikel über lebende Personen) I hope that these links help. If I am wrong and you read a different language, then when you click on the link to the English guideline, look for your language on the left in the list of languages. That will take you to the page in your language. But remember that we follow the rules of English Wikipedia, which might be different from the rules of Wikipedias in other languages, but that should give you some idea of the rules here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC) HI IVAN, thanks for your massage... but you have to delete the wrong articles... For example her residence... She is a public Figure which she doesn't like to speak about her private life. But I know, that she never lives in AUGSBURG and she doesn't live in Germany... You don't have any sources, that make u sure about it. Also you dont have any sources that Mahdavikia´s History is correct. in Iranian NEWS-PAPERS all the apologized from SAMII Family... How you can add these things... WIKIPEDIA is the site for know the person and know about update and correct information but nor false.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC) According to this article she is living in Monte Carlo- The name of Newspaper is ABEND ZEITUNG NÜRNBERG http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.samirasamii.com/14/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20080902_-B-_-Samiee-fcn-marketing_0647.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.samirasamii.com/az-3/&h=2283&w=1465&tbnid=fp4SqX3qJcA1HM:&zoom=1&tbnh=90&tbnw=58&usg=__Hp5VIxTNLK1BF087h1gGovDzZDY=&docid=8_j7Nn_FDw95BM&sa=X&ei=wq22VISSD8n3UqragZAN&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAA&dur=581 So you have a source which your residence info is wrong.... !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.nordbayern.de/nuernberger-nachrichten/nuernberg/exotin-in-der-mannerwelt-1.895329 regarding this page you information is wrong... She is living in Monaco.... I can not understand which play you are playing.... Why you don't search exactly what you editing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you for providing a link, now there is something I can respond to. The article you gave is from 2008, and says that she lives in Nuremberg, which is in Germany. The article also says that she commutes to Hamburg and Frankfurt (also in Germany) and to Monte Carlo (Monaco), but it does not say that she lives in Monaco, so it is wrong to say that she lives in Monaco based on that article. There are other articles from that time that also say she lives in Germany, and none that I have seen that say that she does not. So we cannot change the information. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Dear IVAN, http://rund-magazin.de/uploads/images/am_ball/abcdefgh/samirapoldi.jpg Please upload this picture. Which is free of Charge and free of right and fits much better to the WIKIPEDIA PAGE. Under the Photo it is written: SPORT MANAGER- SPORT COLUMNIST I CAN UNDERSTAND GERMAN. If u have any question don't hesitate to contact me... THANKS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks again, Jasmin. I am going to forward your request to add the image to the article talk page. Please see here in a few minutes. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Hi, to donate an image, that is already online, please see WP:DONATEIMAGE. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Prostitution in Canada

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Prostitution in Canada. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightning in a tropical cyclone

I've closed the longstanding RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone as no consensus with an unusually detailed rationale. Basically, nobody wanted to keep it, but there wasn't consensus on what to do, so I've taken a bold step of un-redirecting it and immediately sending it to AFD to get input from people who don't often show up at RFD. I'd really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone, where I've given a strong suggestion that people pick between the RFD-favored steps of deletion or retargeting to lightning. I'm attempting to notify everyone who participated in the RFD (that's BDD, Ivanvector, Inks.LWC, Guy1890, Steel1943, and Thryduulf), but if I missed someone, please do the notification for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding User:IvanVector

Hey Ivanvector,

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I tagged User:IvanVector for speedy deletion criterion U2. If you want to make sure that "IvanVector" is always associated with you in regards to its spelling, there's a couple of options that I know that you can do:

1. Go to Special:CreateAccount while logged in as this account to create User:IvanVector so that it is associated with your current account. Then, you can either reinstate the redirect to target your page, it possibly utilize tagging the page with {{Doppelganger}}, or:
2. Request that your username be changed to "IvanVector" via Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple since that name currently doesn't belong to any other editor.

Hope this helps! Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, and that's fine if the capital-V redirect gets deleted. I did try some time ago to create the "IvanVector" user account but the system blocked it, I don't remember why exactly but I assume it has to do with case-non-sensitivity, so I created the redirect instead. My username is what I always intended, and I've been here six years without the absence of that redirect being an issue. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No rant required

Ivanvector, from the outset I thought the action 'ill-advised', but well intended. For that reason (on my part), no rant is required.Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun show loophole

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun show loophole. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Raven" in MOS

Thanks for the revert. Yes, I thought somebody had typed in the lines and misspelled "visitor", but then I went to The Raven and saw the spelling there, tracked it back to the cited source, and found what you already knew... and then spread the word about the word, so to speak. --Thnidu (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RFD help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, i just explicitly requested to you, within the ongoing RFD about wp:KAFFEEKLATSCH redirects, that you remove the tag(s) you added to the wp:kaffeeklatsch redirect. It's bringing the RFD off-topic, if it has to be discussed more, so I'll try here. Seriously, i do appreciate your adding the soft redirect to the top of the RFD, and your trying to help. But, it is undermining the usefulness of the soft redirect example, if it is tagged. It makes it look bad and does not show what users would see if the soft redirect is kept. It is actually interfering with the RFD, imo, though I assume you do not intend that. I'll watch here, hope to keep this side discussion out of the RFD itself as much as possible. I hope you could just remove the tag and briefly indicate you've done so at the RFD, in response to my request. sincerely --doncram 04:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Mousing over it, I now see exactly: "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space place for women to get together, hear, and support each other. This is a soft redirect. This is a redirect from a page outside the user namespace to a user" and then it is cut off. I gather from your statements that you see "nothing" or something different. Perhaps your settings are different than mine. Anyhow, thanks for allowing me and probably others to see the intended message again now. --doncram 15:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I don't often get edit conflicts on my own talk page. The template should be there, because it's proper procedure to notify editors who come across the redirect that it's being discussed, and there are templates and scripts that depend on it. Popups ignores the template (and other Xfd templates) and previews the page below the code. It's not showing what you think it should because soft redirects are not interpreted as redirects by the script, and it can't load the target page to preview. But I have removed it anyway so you can see what it looks like. I'm still not sure what the other error is caused by, you don't need any special permissions to create redirects.

(edit conflict)Please put "currently under discussion notice back. It is part of the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12#Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH and is listed at the top as such, so your removal of the notice is wrong and interferes with those editors that are working on maintenance categories.

Also, that redirect is incorrectly placed in a hidden category that refers to project pages. Nothing about Lightbreather's subpage nor that redirect to it has anything to do with a project. Please correct your mistakes. EChastain (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment directly below - you've already added the Rfd template back and I'm not going to revert. The {{R to user namespace}} template has nothing to do with project pages. It only indicates that the redirect goes to a page in user space from a redirect that is not in user space (i.e. categorizing cross-namespace redirects). Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As for what you see now, maybe we are using different popup scripts, or maybe it works differently in different browsers. I see just the title of the page, and some stats. Normal redirects usually show the title of the redirect, followed by "redirects to" and then the title and content from the target. Anyway I won't add the template back, but someone else might. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't fiddle with talk page comments of other editors, especially removing them to a whole different place

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See WP:Talk_page guidelines#Editing comments. In fact, I think it would be good if you read the whole WP:Talk page guidelines. What you just did is very forbidden. EChastain (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The discussion has to do with the redirect; it belongs on the redirect's talk page. I have left appropriate notices to notify any users coming here that the discussion is on the talk page, and I have left appropriate notices at the talk page to indicate that the discussion originated here. Please also see the note at the top of this page which reads "If I think your comment is about an article I may move it there and leave a note here saying I did so." I did not modify your comments but, per WP:BLANKING, I am entitled to do so. I'll ask you to consider whether continuing this thread falsely accusing me of wrongdoing is productive in any way, or if you have any more comments about the redirect, please see the discussion at the redirect's talk. Other users have already commented there. Ivanvector (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@EChastain: I have reverted your edit which added a duplicate of your talk page comments here, which are already preserved in the archived discussion above. You can do what you like with your comments elsewhere, but placing duplicates here is disruptive, and I am asking you per WP:NOBAN to stop immediately. Ivanvector (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) @EChastain: I completely disagree with your opinion of Ivanvector's actions to move the discussion to the proper talk page, as well as your interpretation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In no way did Ivanvector change the intent or the meaning of your comments that were posted here; on the contrary, Ivanvector moved the discussion to the proper talk page so that it gets proper exposure. In fact, the edit you performed above is a violation of WP:TPO, and the fact that you removed part of the discussion after it was moved makes Ivanvector's response appear broken, in addition to you breaking your own signature timestamp in the process. Like Ivanvector, I try my best to assume good faith as well, but your recent actions/edits and the comment that started this section make it very difficult for me personally to believe that you meant these actions in good faith. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I apologise for my mistake noted above by Steel943. It was done in good faith as was my suggestion that Ivanvector read WP:Talkpage guidelines.
• You're entitled to blank, but not to move my comments to Wikipedia talk:Kaffeeklatsch, as you did. I will take this to ANI if you do this again. EChastain (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• @EChastain: I highly recommend that you read WP:BOOMERANG; If you file that report, the effect of WP:BOOMERANG is bound to happen to you. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ivanvector. You have new messages at Template talk:Talk page stalker.
Message added 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the RFD tag placed on Secular Progressive Movement

How did you correct the day in the substituted template without having to do a separate edit to change the day to a day other than the present day, as you did in this edit? I'm just wondering; I'm assuming that there may be a parameter such as day= that can be used for that template to refer the nomination to a day in the past, but since the documentation page fails to mention this parameter, and since I cannot translate Lua, I have no idea how you did it. (I may look through the template's history to find out, but I figure that you would know, given that aforementioned edit.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I just copied the code directly from one of the other tagged redirects. The result is that it actually points to the wrong anchor, but it's close enough. As far as I know there is no way to pass a date to {{rfd}}. Ivanvector (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That was one of my thoughts. I may request an edit to the module later to allow manual parameters to bypass the automatic date in the event that it is necessary, such as this example. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

IP test greeting

112.79.38.146 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)welcome you i am aman paul

Hello! Welcome, and thank you for introducing yourself here. It is customary when starting a new discussion on a talk page to place a "level two section header" by typing something like == IP test greeting ==. The text surrounded by the double hashes gets turned into a new section header like you see above. Also, it is customary to sign by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. And if you would like to test the editing features of Wikipedia, the proper place to do that is in your sandbox. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

TPS/TPW

Thanks for starting the RFC at WP:VPP. I am pleasantly surprised the template is headed towards a strong keep despite it being considered possibly technically redundant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the template! I was worried that starting the RfC might be premature and might unintentionally sway the consensus for the template, but I am pleased that doesn't seem to be the case. So far, anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That spanish chap

Did you get any further with it? I can take it if you want. You seem to be rather busy at the mo. I have time on my hands. Si Trew (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am quite busy at the moment but was planning on taking a look this weekend. Please don't feel the need to wait up for me though. My Spanish is probably not better than Google's. Ivanvector (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Socialist state

I have replied to your comments at Talk:Socialist state. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In case you are not watching the page, I have replied again. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I am watching the page. If you would like to get my attention there anyway, you can use a template such as {{ping}} to send a notification. I don't have time to reply at the moment but I will take a look later on. Ivanvector (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't know about the {{ping}} template. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

ce

Cast your eyes over Gustav Wikkenhauser if you get a chance, I drafted it and put it in main. While I fiddle with the Spanish chap, do a bit of copy edit on that one will you?

I kinda like it when Rs become articles but nobody will appreciate your hard work for doing so.

I appreciate it, I appreciate your knowledge and considered decisions. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I contacted the IET of shich I am a member, over the weekend, I got a kind reply and a photo in the reply. I have been talking with the archivist, Jon Cable, but we are very unsure about copyright on the image to put in the infobox, well I am: It is unattributed and may belong to that society, his decendants, or nobody at all. So I think best, right now, not to stick it in, cos it would just be taken out again I imagine as a copyvio.

Nice chap. 16:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Countries That Are Not The United Kingdom

Nicely done, that made me laugh. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way I guess then from your part of the country you know the game Rummoli. Unheard of in the UK. I made a nice board for it, as you see from the pic (I hope). I misspelled it as I did not know it should have two M's. 23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you asked me about reviewing the page some time ago, and I never got around to it. Absolutely a well-known card game around here, though I myself have not played it. Your board looks very nice though. Where I'm from euchre is the game of choice for yelling at your extended family after dessert, often accompanied by tea or more commonly in my family, whisky. In fact, this may be just my own family's traditions. Also popular for this purpose are cribbage, hearts (which I'm surprised to find there without needing to pipe the link), or one of many variations of rummy. We once tried poker but it ended poorly for everyone except my father, who of course thought it was a riot, and we haven't played since. Bridge is allegedly popular enough around here that there is a daily column dedicated to the game in several local (and one national) paper, yet I have not met a single person who has ever played the game nor has any inkling how to play. Ivanvector (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tut tut tut, you put the tea and whisky together in a tantalus (cabinet), then make sure you keep a key.... Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a game also called Scribbage which was kinda a mix of cribbage and well it was on a five by five board. I made one of them, I even bought one, they were made by a small manufacturer long since defunct. I made a nice wood one, at one time. People here (in Hungary) don't know cribbage at all, but that is our favourite, to play for pennies, you have to use your bonce for that a bit. But our article is about a totally different game. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[this isn't the one either]. My family, at that time, were in Hamilton, Ontario so perhaps it was just local slang. Seen the Big Nickel up Sudbury way! One of the difficulties with these eastern english names is of course they are exactly that and just the british went around naming things, so there is genuine confusion, I think, with eastern seaboard of the US, you lot, and the east of the english coast. Deliberately not linking etc so as not to confuse it further. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if you mean Cribbage Square Solitaire? That's one that I'm not familiar with at all. Or maybe this which also sounds a bit like your game. My grandmother is Slovak from what was Hungary a century ago, and she knows euchre well, but I don't think cribbage at all. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In Hungary (and I realise what you mean) gambling is pretty much illegal. In the UK it is open book. I have a bet on the gee gees once, every year, for a penny bet on User:Monkap's birthday, on the King George VI Stakes. I can do tic tac as well, neves a vier, nine to five, top of the head, nine to two, round the houses thirty on a burlington bertie. It's not that tricky to do the odds on a book, the thing is, never bet on it. The magic sign, Ladbrokes,(top of the head, cirling anticlockwise) knows better than you do. If you bet, take the frac, that is to say, always take the difference in between say neves a vier and rout, take the frac, That wwaűűay you can come in a little healthier. Have had the privilege to see em run at Newmarket Racecourse a few times, my best on my late father's birthday. Got seventy quid on the day and who paid for the restraurant? So ended up with.... um.... Si Trew (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

record labels and stuff

Ivanvector, I just wanted to say I appreciate your thoughts and perspective, and wanted to thank you for the time you are putting into the debate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC) ps and I wouldn't be caught dead currently creating a garbage article such as that one.

Thank you for the intelligent debate as well. These deletion discussions often very quickly degenerate into "of course it's notable! they're my FAVOURITE! we have to keep the article!" and I'm very happy that this one hasn't. On the subject of notability, I think there may be a case to draft a section in WP:MUSIC specifically for record labels, and perhaps I'll start on one over the weekend. Although I'm short on time lately. Ivanvector (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be great, and if you want I'm happy to offer any assistance I can. Several of us (including Chubbles, by the way) have been clamoring for exactly that approach, but have been either too lazy, timid, or whatever to make a formal proposal. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have created a discussion at WT:MUSIC with a goal of creating a notability standard specifically for record labels. It's outside my wheelhouse, so your help would be greatly appreciated. Pinging Chubbles as well. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How to close

Reagrding your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Close? Not close? I looked at the discussion to see if it was ready to close. I've formed an opinion, but I wonder about 'the result looks fairly clear to me.' There were two different proposals for the revised text in the GA guideline. Do you believe that one of the two has consensus, or neither? It appears that people are ready for a change, but which change they want is not so clear. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I purposely didn't express an opinion or my conclusion in the ANI thread because I don't think that would be the right venue in either case. If I had an opinion it should go in the discussion, and if I had a conclusion then I could attempt to close myself, though I would prefer not to as a non-admin in an area I have no experience in.

From the discussion, I see that there is unanimous consensus that reviewers should not fail a review simply because of rigid enforcement of a deadline, but I take your point about there being two proposals and the desired wording being unclear. There were two "oppose as written" comments, both observing that the phrase "The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen." opened the door to reviews being extended indefinitely while the nominator tinkers with the article. There was discussion about removing one sentence which did not satisfy either of the dissenters, then one made a counterproposal which attracted no debate. There were only two comments timestamped after that proposal, both seemingly in support of the original proposal.

I would have to say the consensus is very strong to change the language (even among those who dissented to the wording), and quite (though less) strong in support of the original proposal. Does that line up with your evaluation? Ivanvector (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply about the GA proposal. It's good to see that three more comments came in with dates of March 26 and 27, which widens the base for any conclusion that may be reached. I might conceivably close now, but I would have to do my own wordsmithing to come up with a change to the guideline, which is something better left to editors in the discussion. I wish that some discussion participant (perhaps yourself?) would try to draft up a compromise and propose it in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you've done it already, and I think you're taking a good approach. Like I said, I don't have any experience at GAN so I think it would be out of place for me to comment one way or the other on the wording proposals. It looks like it's going to work itself out anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm at fault there, not you (and not Twinkle)

Hi Ivanvector,
"April 2015.. Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject... This probably unnecessarily harsh warning left by Twinkle" and so on.
You are right, and I was wrong. Please don't give this a second thought. It was probably conduct unbecoming of an admin, and I'll "cop it sweet" if anything further happens.
Your friendly neighborhood admin gone rogue aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me at ANI

I don't want this to seem like WP:CANVASS, which it won't because of the timestamp, but just wanted to say thank you for putting in a good word for me at ANI. You and I often disagree at WP:RFD but we just disagree and that is how we get WP:CONSENSUS isn't it? I haven't been keeping tabs but I imagine you "win" about 90% if the time and I about 10% of the time, sometimes User:Lenticel plays a blinder at the last minute. I thought that was all part of the process. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad faith and incivility from User:SimonTrew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm really pleased that no regard is shown for editors who have experienced bad faith from others bad attitude. (I'm employing sarcasm).  — Calvin999 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: you're not a new user here, so I have to ask: what exactly do you expect to be the outcome of trolling my talk page? Do you think your casual snide remark is going to endear me to your crusade? It has quite the opposite effect, let me assure you. Since this matter has been resolved in every venue that you've opened it, I expect that you will not comment on it again on my talk page, absent some stunningly fantastic reason for doing so, lest I assume that you've grouped me in with your querulous vendetta and are trying to goad me into misconduct such that you can pillory me before the masses, as I get the impression you've done with SimonTrew. You may call that assuming bad faith if you like, but consider that only one of us has taken time to post snide comments on the talk pages of their opponents from a failed ANI thread. Now, since this is settled, let's get back to making an encyclopedia. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The section is too long for the mobile editor so I am replying here. Google results do not affect my argument. I oppose restarting the RM, but in the event it is restarted anyway, I request that my "support" comment be copied and pasted without modification to the new discussion. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Double fault

Nicely done old bean. Wish I'd thought of it. Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I have probably said this before but I shall say it again. Thank you for all your hard work, your intelligence, and good nature, over at WP:RFD. I for one very much appreciate it. It shines out of you. I shall not always agree with you, that is why we have discussions, but you are always in good nature, and take my sarcasm well (but it is just that, sarcasm, and not meant badly). Together I think we make the encylopaedia a little bit better, day by day. Si Trew (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! I must say I appreciate our interactions at RfD as well. This can be a pretty dry place. I also appreciate that we often disagree; you challenge me to back up my arguments and do my homework, and I appreciate those checks. Plus I'm learning a whole lot about the monarchy, whether you consider it the British Crown or the Canadian one.

Also, rest assured I don't take interactions at ANI lightly. If I thought that your conduct should earn you a sanction, you can be sure I'd say so. On the other hand, some people need to learn how to not stir the pot.

I'm travelling this week so probably won't be around here much, but thanks again for the note. Ivanvector (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Letter Concerning Toleration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Letter Concerning Toleration. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kargil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kargil War. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Bible facts

Well done, you made me laugh. I don't know how to string it farther, I think it should lay as as it stands, with maybe you closing it.

Well thank you! I will pass on closing this one, though, I try to stay away from possibly controversial actions when religions are involved. Plus I was just on ANI in a thread about non-admin closes, so I'll lay low for a bit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nah, not controversial, until some deadhead doesn't realise it. My refs are all actually correct and RS. I didn't bother to check the New International Version cos it is a piece of shit, King James is poetry. I'll probably NAC it, but all the points actually are valid (and my refs): That's the talent. I had to get special permission from the Bishop of Bedford to marry my wife-to-be in Cambridgeshire, cos it is kinda just across the border, bur more cos she is Hungarian and so "not C of E". But fortunately the church and pub were only two hundred yards apart, and our house was about a hundred from each. Best day of my life. My wife was taken to church in a 1949 Riley my friend had restored, all the one hundred yards. She and I, married, were escorted two hundred yards back to the pub overlooking the River Great Ouse. (Which I fell in once and had to be dragged out of it. That was fun.) Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a lovely day. The only river that I can recall falling into is the Thames, but not the one you're probably thinking of. I've fallen into it lots of times actually, in many different locations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a congregation but they had to walk the two hundred yards. Pity them. The service was not quite bilingual but it was on the hymn sheet on the bride's side in Hungarian and on the groom's side in English, I did the copy and made sure they corresponded. Nothing worse than trying to belt out For God In Sin Our Ages Past when someone else is trying to do jesu thou that we rejoiseth, especially when you have a woman in the background fingering her ancient organ. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know the Thames in Ontario, I don't think: I kinda make a point of doing this kind of thing, I know three Sudburys (Seen the Big Nickell, wooo) and Cambridge, Ontario and Cambridge, Mass, and of course Cambridge, Cambridgeshire - but not yet Cambridge in Gloucestershire, which is tiny but on a directory enquiries search it asks "Did you mean Cambridge, Cambridgeshire"? NO OF COURSE NOT I MEANT A HAMLET WITHOUT A PHONE BOX. Grrr. The key with rivers is North American English says "x River" whereas British English says "River x", but the redirect still goes to the British one. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I've also fallen into the Ausable, and Pog Lake which was lovely. Really falling into any of the lakes in Algonquin Park is worth the trip. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dean (South Korean singer)

Hello Due to the fact that the two users that are verified wiki users would not cooperate with us, i am writing to you. Dean is a Active Singer in USA however, due to the fact that the verified user changed his title to Dean (South Korean singer), many people believe that he's just another k-pop star or having misconception that he's a k pop star. We want to make it clear that Dean is an AMERICAN singer. No matter where and what race he might have been born, Once an American, ALWAYS an American. If possible, could you change his title to Dean (R&B singer) instead of having south korean singer. Thank you. Josephyangjoombas (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I would only be able to help out here if the request to move the page was certain to be uncontroversial, but since some other users have already declined, I can't make that assumption. I will add a request to move the page to the article's talk page in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Troop's Wikipedia Page

Hi Ivanvector,

I would like to discuss Ian Troop's Wikipedia page with you.

I believe that all edits made two days ago were fair and impartial.

All content added was clearly cited from respected publications and prominent sources.

The edits made were merely done to add detail and update the page.

Please let me know what your thoughts are on this matter.

Best,

D.James252002

Hi there, thanks for reaching out. I found your edit to Ian Troop to be unduly promotional in nature, because you deleted large amounts of properly-sourced negative material and replaced it with positive material about the subject. That is a violation of both our biographies of living persons policy and our neutral point of view policy. Normally such edits can be rewritten to conform, but your paragraph which started "[l]eaving a trail of success in his wake" was entirely unacceptable for being overtly promotional - it reads like a press release from a public relations firm, and Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Seeing as how the Pan Am Games are on right now and this page is likely to be looked up by readers interested in their development, I chose to undo your unacceptable edit in its entirety, rather than leave the unduly promotional prose up pending review. I'll have a better look shortly. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask, and welcome to Wikipedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it's customary when leaving messages on talk pages to sign your post by adding ~~~~ after your comment, which will be turned into your signature and a timestamp. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ivanvector. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_25#Airbus_a380_emergency_landing.
Message added 23:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- TheChampionMan1234 23:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)