User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sanctioned!

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

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

Good hang time, lol. But don't say that, you're fine placing alert templates on anybody who has been editing a topic under discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. (Community discretionary sanction templates are thornier, not that you need to refrain there either, but it takes more practice.) Of course one often does it when one has some concern, or why bother, but please note that the templates themselves say "This message..bla bla.. does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date". So you're not accusing anybody of anything by placing the template. (Indeed, POV-pushers who get the template frequently post it right back on their adversary, and this too is allowed.) It does not need to be logged. Actually I think it may be automagically logged somewhere in cyberheaven, since there's a lot of fuss about placing it unmodified etc.[1] Bishonen | talk 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

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

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

Well...

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

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

Cecil (lion) AfD

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

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

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

Ignore all rules/TheShortVersion

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

Reporting an user about creating No indication of significance

Hello Ivanvector,

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

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

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

AIN

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

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

Commonwealth Games redirects

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Your Question in eswiki

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

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

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

Thank you

...for your contributions [2]. Much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

easycore

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

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

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

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

August 2015

Hello, I'm 108.235.242.4. I wanted to let you know that my recent contribution that you undid to Summa de arithmetica was in error, because it was based on facts. If you believe this is not fact, please consider that it is on the Internet and therefore it is true, but feel free to leave me another message on my talk page. Thanks. 108.235.242.4 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

01F341

U+01F341 🍁 MAPLE LEAF

Does not show up on my Windows 7 genuine advantage. I thought you were on W7 too. I kinda liked your canuck flag. Can't do either of mine with the colours. Si Trew (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I am, at the office, but I am at home now running Win 8.1. I'll have to check tomorrow which edition I'm running. That's interesting, I would've assumed every edition of Win7 would have support for the same character sets. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think mine is Windows Ultimate actually on this one, the desktop well deskunder, I'll check on the laptop which is Win7 starter and see what happens there. Sorry for all the {{ec}}s. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)mn

There's a very new Canadian one (🇨🇦) which doesn't render on any of my desktops, it's just the letters "C A" in blue. Why blue of all things? It also seems to actually be two unicode characters U+1F1E8 🇨 REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL LETTER C and U+1F1E6 🇦 REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL LETTER A, and this seems to be the case for all of the other country flags as well. I guess getting this to render as a flag in mobile platforms must require a hack in the operating system. Anyway, I use the maple leaf instead, and I set it to red with {{red}} although on platforms where emoji carry colours I assume it's overridden. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to cut & paste on my mobile: 🇨🇦 Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Union flag/Union jack is also two code points, and I couldn't make that out either: Either put them as an escape sequence in the basic multilingual plane (U+0000 to U+FFFF) or don't. Let's not start doing essentially escape sequences in other planes too. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) rush hour: Actually it appears as the Maple leaf on Windows 7 Starter (Hungarian version) but not on my desktop on Windows 7 Ultimate. That being said, I turned updates off after buying it seven years ago so have not had a single Windows Update since about six years ago. And amazingly, no viruses. Disclaimer: I worked for a virus and malware prevention company in Hungary. Even their software found no trace of a virus on my computer. And I never run any antivirus software. Hungarian: Hulye vagjok, de nem hulyebb. I am stupid, but not damned stupid. I know you set it to red: at WT:RfD I guyed you for it with a <style color="red"> when it was blue when I clicked it, it goes tomaple leaf. That's fine if your flag is dichromatic, but what about the rest of us? :) Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:RfD seems a needless remnant, BTW. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you just now, I would not have been able to restore my overwritten mobile comment on the desktop. I think I've restored your comments. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

NP it's a privilege to put my dirty boots on someone else's doorstep. Si Trew (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, today well just about our time now yesterday was our fourth wedding anniversary, me and User:Monkap. And we found a new house today to have several more miserable wedding anniversaries in. All is good. I don't use facebook or twitter or all that lot, so I don't quite know how to announce the news that while moving y'all may not have to suffer my lectures for a week or two. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! Both on your new home and your anniversary. My partner and I just sent out invitations to our upcoming wedding today. You could use one of the wikibreak notices, there are some creative ones or I think there are blank ones where you can fill in your own messages. Or trust that we'll likely get along alright without you for a bit, or the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be recorded in the page histories. ;) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My sincere best wishes and congratulations to you and your partner."If I remember rightly, Ambrose Bierce in The Devil's Dictionary defines marriage as "A household consisting of a husband, a wife, and two slaves, making in all, two.". Perhaps your best man -> groomsman might like to mention that, I don't really know what your traditions are for after-dinner speeches -> public speaking at weddings. And it's rather an assumption on my part (with "wife") that your partner is a female, as if it bothered me were your partner to be male: some of my best friends know gay people. But it's a sod in English grammar. (I resist "their" as singular, though I I know I am fighting a losing battle with that one). Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Pinging Simonm223 for this. Yes, my fiancée is female, she is not on Wikipedia because she sees it as a horrible time sink, which of course it is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the move we did this week and our friend next door, a man with a van, will move the bulk of it. We sold our old Ford Mondeo cos we didn't really need it but Fords do go for a lot here in Hungary and I had kept it clean: gave him a Haynes manual but how he is going to fathom the English out of that I don't know. So most of this week I have been trogging back and forth between the two places. I hope you know when I guy you for being from Canadaland, it is in jest: I respect you very much, even when (perhaps more when) I happen to disagree with you over at RfD. You are always polite, always succinct, always intelligent, sometimes wrong. But it takes a clever man to know he can never always be right: to know and not budge is the stupid man. I take my hat off to you. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Relevant: "Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience." -- Oscar Wilde Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, I never followed up on this. I am running Windows 7 Professional SP1 at the office. I think this has more to do with installed fonts than with operating platform, but of course I'm just guessing. We don't usually require verifiability on user talk pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably cos I never put on the Windows Update because it annoys me. This computer goes like shit off a shovel and another font won't hurt it, but if I put on Windows Update it will continually (not continously) annoy me. As if the world needs another maple leaf anyway. One can always tell a canuck abroad because of the maple leaf, you can guarantee a Canuck will have a maple leaf on their baggage or clothing so that they do not get confused with an American. Oddly enough this morning there was something on the world news about London, Ontario, nothing major, and I had to explain to the missus that that is in Canada (just about, there is some kind of pond between that and the US I think, Lake Michigan or something). You're right it's a time sink, but I tend not to edit much at weekends, cos it goes quite idle then, so I have the feeling most people edit it when they should be working. Si Trew (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Is that the thing about payday loans? Criminal operations, there is no question. There are several ponds, actually: Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair all lie between London and the United States, and Lake Ontario if you go as the crow flies but in an entirely illogical direction. Lake Michigan, however, is not, it is the only one of the Great Lakes that is entirely within the US. And yes, we do put our flags on our luggage for specifically that reason, although with our current Prime Minister our global reputation is suffering. Though it looks like October will bring an interesting change of government; a colourful one, at least. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Vote clarification

Hi Ivanvector, I wanted to ask about this edit and similar actions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23. You struck your delete votes there without leaving another bolded vote, but you used "wd" in the edit summaries, which I think I've only ever seen as meaning "weak delete". Is that what you're advocating? Not that you have to have a bolded vote one way or another. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: Thanks for checking. No, I meant to withdraw ("wd") my comment. The rationale behind my statement doesn't seem to be firmly grounded in consensus, so I'm striking while I reconsider the arguments. I'll comment again in some of them later if they aren't closed first, but I don't think anything I have to say about any of them will really sway the discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Lyrical RfD

See also Hey I just met you. And this is crazy. But here's my number. So call me maybe. and I just met you. And this is crazy. So here's my number. Call me maybe.. Same author, so I figure its better to add to your existing RfD rather than create a new one. I also left the author a note about not doing that anymore. Crow^Caw 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't create the Rfd, I just merged two that someone else had created. I'll add these two to that Rfd and see what happens. Thanks also for informing the user. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In re the edit restrictions you mentioned in evidence

I was reading the evidence page of the third ArbPIA case and I noticed you mention the 30d/200e limit. It's actually 30 days/500 edits, and it's being used on Gamergate controversy and its talk page; thus far it's been effective at weeding out sockpuppets from what I understand (I don't edit in that topic area). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually I had written 30d/500e but then thought it seemed too high so I changed it to 200. Thanks for your comments too. Do you mind if I mention this on the case page? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Go right ahead. It's worth noting that the restrictions were added as a result of this Arbitration enforcement request, so you may want to read that thread for further information. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

NAC RFD close

I replaced your non-admin close at RFD with my own admin close - I had a statement justifying it and everything, but you were too quick on the draw. Did not expect an edit conflict. No problem, but if you look back and see your name removed from the close, that's why. Thanks for the heads up, and good call on the G10 tag. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'm happy for it to have been admin endorsed. Thanks for the note anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pat Carey

Your saying Pat Carey is not a notworthy article ... He has 3 Juno Awards and 9 Maple Blues Awards alone in Canada. Your kidding me.T Heart (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Imasku: Sorry, I think you've left this message on the wrong user's talk page. I've never edited that article and I'm pretty sure I've never said anything about Pat Carey on here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you did this is what you left: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Use_mdy_dates_from_September_2015&oldid=680681635&diff=prev T Heart (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That edit has nothing to do with Pat Carey. You removed a tag from a maintenance category that makes it so that the category doesn't show up for readers, which is how those maintenance categories are supposed to behave, so I fixed it. I really don't know what you're talking about, but if you need help with something, let me know. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Sorry 4 spamming -random user with no ip adress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.49.134 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@173.163.49.134: thanks for your note. Please remember to treat other users here with respect, on Wikipedia and in general. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Mug

It may please you to know, I drink out of a mug which has a kinda maple leaf motif and "Canada" written on it, that I bought somewhere in a dollar store in Canadaland, I think near Sudbury, home of the Big Nickel. That mug is now about fifteen years old and cost me a Canadian dollar and is basically indestructable, theoretically made of china (eh?)( but certainly from China, I imagine. It is unbreakable. It has now travelled about eighteen thousand miles in suitcases etc I imagine, and it is just unbreakable. I have been laying new tiles on the floor and I can imagine if I dropped it on the tiles they would break and the mug would bounce off them.

I go find it and send you a pic

Si Trew (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Found the mug just need to find camera now. My missus is a bugger with this, she is in Lisbon now and fast asleep, I only had it half a day ago, she could have put it anywhere. In theory I could use the camera on my phone but that is a blackberry and I have no sodding idea how to use that. I took a pic but have no idea how to upload it. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian RfC

You previously gave an opinion about the filmography section at Kim Kardashian. Please see Talk:Kim Kardashian, where a request for comments has been started. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Good luck worked

Well very much thanks for the good luck, your canuck charm seemed to have worked cos now I have not just one second interview but two.

If i get the job you won't have me pestering RfD so much. I got a second second interview, too, with another company. I wonder if any is wise enough to check Simon Trew on Wikipedia... they had on their screen Mark Trew, Mark is my middle name but I rarely use it, so that was a bit bizarre. Trew is a really hard thing for Hungarians cos they don't have the W sound so it tends to be Trev -> Trevor which amuses me and I know shouldn't. Mark Trew would essentially mean the same as Mark Twain, to mark a true path down a river. to mark both the left and right banks and steer a course between them. I don't think they meant that though,

I've taken this out of RfD and put it on your user page cos I wanted to thank you personally and I don't think it belongs at RfD. Certainly I should thank you personally. [[ It may please you to know, on the Queen's golden jubilee, in the UK, we made a maple leaf flag and had that hanging on our door instead of a union jack. Well she's your queen too. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullying

I do not appreciate you and Tavix piling on with two messages on my talk page about the same thing when one would've sufficed. This is why people give up on wikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr who1975: my apologies for the double posting on your talk page. The notice is posted automatically by Twinkle when flagging an attack page for speedy deletion, and cannot be disabled. Since two separate pages that you created were flagged separately by Tavix and myself, you received two warnings from the automated tool. You are free to remove them if you like. This is not done to bully you, but to stress the importance of our biographies of living persons policy which you violated by creating these derogatory redirects. If you create more, you will receive more automated warnings, or you will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This was not derogatory? Even if it was (which it isn't)... we have lots of derogatory names as redirects for people on here... I direct you to Nobama and I'm sure I could find more.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tricky Dick--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing those up. In fact Nobama was up at RfD earlier this year. The difference between those two is that "Nobama" was an established and published slogan used by a group of people critical of Barack Obama, and made its way into reliable press; thus, readers are somewhat likely to come to Wikipedia looking for information on it. Conversely, M. Night Shyamalamadingdong was entirely made up, and since it was derogatory in nature it violated our biographies of living persons policy, and had to be deleted. Tricky Dick is the same - derogatory, but prominent usage means we keep it; also, BLP doesn't apply in that case since Nixon is long dead. If you'd like to contest the deletion of your redirects you can try deletion review, but frankly they don't stand a chance in hell. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy belated t hanksgiving

Hope you had a nice break, you deserved it. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Ivanvector. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Riverside, Mississippi

Ivanvector, please take a moment to review the comment I left at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 14#Riverside, Mississippi. Thank you again for your help with this. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Shortcut template

Thanks for dealing with this matter so effectively. Please tighten up the language at the template page as well. The relevant wording is on the 7th line in the Usage section. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved. I discovered that the documentation page was not protected. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: thanks for taking care of that, I wasn't quite sure what you meant. I think in most cases the documentation pages are left open to edit when a template is protected, and if not I wouldn't have been able to edit it anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

APPLE

Really? You think an obscure satellite is single most likely thing people are searching for, more likely than all others put together, when they type APPLE in all-caps? --Trovatore (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. If you disagree, please list the redirect at Rfd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To expand on that (because that wasn't much of a response, I admit), most searches are in lowercase because why bother capitalizing something, so when a user types something using capitals in the search box, there are generally two possibilities:

1. the user is searching for something specifically differentiated by the capital letters, a proper name for something;
2. the user's caps lock key is stuck.

I feel that it's better to assume the first case, because that is the case which is not a mistake. For the case that is, we have hatnotes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Writing this more for the lurkers than for you, since you've already seen it at the RfD: I don't think we should consider someone who searches for apple by typing in APPLE to be making a "mistake", except in the narrow sense that they don't understand the nuances of Wikipedia's UI. It is a reasonable to guess that search terms are case-insensitive (not true, but a reasonable guess). To me it violates the least surprise principle to send someone to a completely unrelated article just because of case. Note by the way that our titles are case-insensitive in the first letter, which somewhat reduces the value of using case to disambiguate proper names. --Trovatore (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ivanvector:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 20:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

James Sears/Your Ward News

This conversation concerns the article James Sears and has been moved there. Please see the talk page for the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

The Your Ward News website, and newspaper clearly for the last few months state they increased their circulation to 77,000. Thus my edit should not have been reverted, technically speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.196.149 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link? The only reference cited in the article gives 50,000 and is supposedly a quote by Sears himself, so I had to go by that. As for the newspaper itself, I have a handy blue bin by my mailbox for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DELIVERED BY CANADA POST TO 77,000 HOMES, BUSINESSES, AND APARTMENTS... 205.189.187.4 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)SomeAnonIP

I'm still going to leave it at 50,000. While we usually do consider innocuous self-published information provided by an article subject, Sears is well known for making grandiose unsubstantiated claims and puffing information to make himself look good, and he already contradicted himself in a quote in a reliable source. He's currently in a dispute with Canada Post about circulating his newsletter at all, so his claims as to his own circulation should be doubted.

I'm going to copy this thread to the article's talk page at Talk:James Sears so that it's available for others editing the article. If you reply, please reply there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 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.

Personal attack

Your accusation, "the editor requesting this review has a history of repeatedly making the same proposal and badgering any opposition until their opponents get worn down and they get their way" [3], has no basis and is a blatant violation of WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor.") If you have a problem with someone's behavior, then take it to an appropriate forum. WP:MRV is not it. Please edit your comment accordingly. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I take personal attacks and accusations of them seriously, and appreciate that you pointed this out. However, I think you're stretching the definition of a personal attack here, and it feels as though you're doing so with the goal of intimidating me into going away. Of course this guideline does not apply here, but I think you should read WP:WIKILAWYER#Misuse of the term, and by extension, chilling effect (which I thought was covered at WP:NLT, but it's not). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "the editor requesting this review has a history of repeatedly making the same proposal and badgering any opposition until their opponents get worn down and they get their way". I add my support to that statement. A more concise version would be "headstrong with peculiar opinions". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What part of "Comment on content, not on the contributor" do you not understand? In particular, it doesn't say, "Comment on content, not on the contributor, unless you believe what you're saying about the contributor is true".

    Whether the statement about the person is accurate or not is irrelevant as to whether it's appropriate to make the statement in a general discussion area. It's not. It's not appropriate to refer to anyone in a disrespectful way except in the appropriate forum. You address these issues on the person's talk page, or, if you don't get resolution there, you take it to whatever dispute resolution forum you think is appropriate. But disrespecting the person on a general talk page like Move Review is never appropriate. When you do that, you're besmirching the entire community, not just the person you're criticizing. The point is, nobody should be subjected to reading personal criticisms when they're trying to evaluate a Move Review. --В²C ☎ 02:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    • When you assert "has no basis", you open the door to support of the original statement, because you are wrongly asserting something. The statement is fair and easily supportable. You have improved, and so there is no point dwelling. However, in your attempts to find support from "WP:NPA", you are continuing to wikilawyer with very tight paraphrasing. General advice, noting that you do try to take advice, can be found at Meatball:DefendEachOther. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I am copying the second sentence word-for-word. It is not paraphrasing. It's about as clear and unambiguous as any statement in English can be: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Here is another one: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." If you don't think these statements accurately reflect what WP:NPA means, I suggest you take it up there. --В²C ☎ 03:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Stop repeating yourself.

          Stop badgering.

          At WP:MR, you made your point clear enough, and subsequent posts have decreased the likelihood of others posting in support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

          • I'm just now seeing this old complaint--yeah, no admin is going to consider that remark a personal attack. Thanks SmokeyJoe. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Time to get a drink... it's on me! Tiggerjay (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You be careful, I've been known to take people up on these offers. ;) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know - AfD culture

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Re political redirects

Yeah, I'm not American either, I had to do some digging to place those guys. (I'd heard of Hillary Clinton and that's pretty much it.) I enjoyed your edit summary! Bishonen | talk 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC).

Globalize!

Wait--cause you got a Canadian flag in your username you don't have to look across the border? We looked at you, and your elections, where that hipster got up and said he wants a gender-balanced cabinet "because it's 2015". I mean, it's not 2015 where I live, but that's beside the point. (This is all very ironic given that our governor...well, given this.) Anyway, I order you to pay more attention, if only because we're bigger and you can play four downs here, not three. Also, I'm holding a well-known Canadian hostage, and Bishonen knows no mercy. Shoot, typing in Canadian is hard; it makes me really hungry for some poutine... Drmies (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, ya know, we're on da top, eh? And we're bigger den yous guys, too, eh? Yah you pull on da toques an' long johns and come on by some time, we'll t'row some moose steaks on da grill and down a coupla six packs, like a coupla good hoser neighbours. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait--are you seriously telling me that Canady is bigger than us, US? Hey, I noticed that a couple more users have that little flaggie (I think Diannaa does. I never noticed it before. Is it because y'all elected this young and gorgeous liberal that youse guys have this new-found patriotism? I saw your prez kissing it up with ours the other day, like we need more taboo-breaking. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, where do you stand on redlinks? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I started doing it around Canada Day this year, and I think some other users (Diannaa, Curly Turkey) started doing it after, but I don't actually know who came first. Personally I think that using blue for article links is unacceptably US-centric. Article links should use the Olympic colours to fairly represent all cultures, and also because of technical limitations on colouring text as rainbows. Redlinks should be black, to represent the great uncharted vastness of space. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

C'est vrai—j'ai volé la feuille d'érable de vous, Ivanvector, and I ain't ever giving it back. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait--you guys have your own day? Wow. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's just like America Day, but with way more back bacon. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Better inside the tent pissing out...

Well you do a lot of hard work too, and I do appreciate it, and I appreciate your sense of humour too. Wikipedia is serious but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be fun, and personally (in real life too) it is a lot more fun when people are enjoying themselves. I start a new job here in Hungaryland on 1 December and will be running a team again, so I hope as in the past I will make that serious and fun at the same time. One of the nicest things the Canucks kept when the British left was their dry sense of humour. (For if not, why do you think we gave you Quebec?) Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't think RfD needs to be as serious as we take it sometimes, but I hope that my dry sense of humour is not interpreted as not taking it seriously. On the other hand sometimes I take it way too seriously. So, balance, I guess. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI Training

Thank you for applying to become an SPI Clerk. At this time we have decided to take you on to the December 2015 training. Please watchlist the page and keep updated with it as time goes on. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DQ! I've watchlisted the page. I'm going to be away for a week starting on Friday and won't have 'net access at all, so if you don't hear from me that's why. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Discredited or not, your edits on Freemen on the land definitely do not stick to a NPOV --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Allthefoxes, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for posting your concerns here. As many beginning users do, you've misinterpreted the neutral point of view policy. Notably, it is not policy that we give neutral and equal weight and balance to all points of view on a subject. The policy states only that we do not impart our own bias when creating and editing content on the project. In order to do so, we attempt to neutrally weigh the points of view of published, reliable sources. In this case, the Freemen on the land are well known as conspiracy theorists endorsing and evangelizing their own novel views on the nature of legal procedure, views which have been widely discredited both in scholarly publications and in actual courts of law, which notably have never been successfully used, and which are only endorsed by their own proponents. The edit which I reverted attempted to downplay the conspiracy theory nature of Freemen views, and attempted to rationalize Freemen theories through the use of language which is common to proponents of the conspiracy. I recognize this because I've spent several years watching the article and seeing these same sorts of improper edits from "new" and "anonymous" users, which also happens to be a Freemen technique. It is also not coincidence that many of the words are misspelled and mispunctuated, as Freemen believe that exotic spellings and particular patterns of symbols effect particular legal meaning to ordinary words and phrases, and that declaring a thing "dubious" makes it automatically invalid and open to whatever convenient interpretation is next invented for it, all of which is of course ridiculous.

Since we also have a policy against revert warring, I am not going to undo the improper edit again. I see you've been active in recent changes patrolling so I assume you're already familiar with that policy; if not, please have a look.

If you have any other questions about neutral point of view or any of our other site policies and guidelines, please ask and I will do my best to offer input. You can also post questions at the help desk or the village pump. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The source linked does not use any kind of language like what was present in the article. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Allie X RfC

Hope you don't mind but wanted to let you know that I moved your response on the Allie X RfC to a newly created threaded discussion section. I agree, we should probably go ahead and close it considering no users oppose inclusion. Meatsgains (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: no problem at all. Thanks for leaving a note. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

AFD culture proposal

While I concede the result of the discussion on my proposal was going to be defeat, I do not believe you, as an opposing participant in the discussion, should not have been the administrator to have closed it. The procedure calls for an uninvolved editor. Trackinfo (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Joke's on you, I'm not an administrator! :P You're right, though, but another user today (also my opponent, as it turns out) was having trouble loading the page to edit today, so some of us were trying to clean up the idle discussions. I think that the outcome was fairly obvious, but if you would like to ask for a closure review, the instructions say to do so at the admins' noticeboard. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeking a different outcome. But as an experienced editor, if you know enough to know how to close an article, you should know the policy on who is allowed to do it. In the future, leave the responsibility to an uninvolved editor, as I said above. If one is not acting quickly enough, the procedure says to call for an uninvolved editor to deal with it. Trackinfo (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And as an experienced editor yourself, you know that quibbling about procedure with other experienced editors is a pointless waste of bits when you don't disagree on the outcome. I'm well aware of the procedure. Thanks for your note. Kudos by the way for your proposal, I think it's quite worthwhile to propose improvements to the AfD process and to try to reduce the problems of frivolous nominations, and I hope that we can discuss more about it when the MOS transgender naming stuff finally gets to the archive. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Bonaparte's gull

Hi Ivan: In the future, you might take a quick look before commenting something out in an article to see if it's being actively updated! :) By the time I went to fix the reference I'd just added, you'd already commented it out! MeegsC (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi MeegsC! Apologies, I did not check the timestamp of your edits, it just looked to me like you added a link to a reference that wasn't being used in the article, and I commented it to fix the ref error so that if you were planning to use it later it would still be there. Sorry to have interrupted your work, but in the future your reversion is an inappropriate use of rollback since you did not leave an edit summary, and that is only allowed if you are reverting vandalism. I do patrol Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting occasionally so I'll be back around if you don't fix the ref error, but for now carry on, and thanks for your note. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

'Misplaced RFC'

Why did you close the RFC with this:

'Requests for comment are for soliciting feedback on editorial changes, not for casting vague aspersions of editor misconduct.'

That is strange, because the WP:RFC is something else, may I refresh your memory? Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions. Which is exactly the problem I had, an editor repeatedly reverted non-contentious referenced material, there were only the two of us so I requested comment, what I didn't expect was for you to come along and close it down employing some frankly biased language. Now, I would like to put the rfc back up as I wish to: request outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content, may I ask, do you have some sort of issue with that and if so please explain why. Twobells (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: Thanks for posting this here. I closed your RfC for two reasons:

1. RfCs must be framed with neutral language. Your RfC declared that you are right and another editor is wrong and that you wanted to solicit opinions from everyone else who so obviously would agree with you and would back up your side of the argument, which is basically canvassing. That is inappropriate. You also didn't actually suggest an edit to comment on. But the bigger reason is
2. you put the RfC header at the very top of a talk page, where it doesn't belong, which is why my header was titled "misplaced RfC".

If you want to put up a proper RfC with neutral language and interested in improving the article, then please do so, conversation is everything here. If you only have a dispute to settle, please try dispute resolution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your contribution, however, I see you failed to respond to your incorrect description of what a rfc is, rather you made it about who said what to whom when the crux of the matter is the removal of non-contentious referenced material, regards. Twobells (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Reported Singleissuevoter for editwarring

Hi, I want to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving Singleissuevoter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring at Block chain (database).Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for your note, although I see the request has already been declined. I had already reported Singleissuevoter as a sock of Rt665j4 but that report has not yet been actioned. You could have a look there if you like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ivanvector, that looks more likely to succeed, then. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RefBot. This was done intentionally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for noticing 8 months later :D Jksamnjason (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Ivanvector: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Katch 22.

Re: Draft:Katch 22 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Katch 22. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)

Dear Sir, I have read your observations with interest and would like to fill in some misinformation. Katch 22 had 5 single records released commercially, on the Fontana Label, 6 if you count being backing singers on Wayne Fontana's chart single " Never An Everyday Thing, ( Fontana Records TF976), besides the L.P.. The complete back catalogue was re-released on Cherry Red /RPM records (retro893) album, singles and BBC Radio One recordings, in 2011, and on the success of that, songwriters Paul Bonner and Mike Eastman from the band have released a follow up album of new material, featured regularly on Radio Six International (Worldwide). So, far from being a 'record collecters' minority interest, there is a story to tell, even if it is about being a BBC Radio One regular session band, appearing on " Late Night Line-Up ", BBC T.V., and their appearance in their own right in the Michael Klinger / Guido Cohen film, " Baby Love ", starring Linda Hayden, Diana Dors, Keith Barron, ......

I have tried to edit the page constantly in between my other commitments, and followed guidelines by ElectricCatfish, to copy other 60's groups pages as a template, but the 'designer page' seems very unstable to edit, and everything I added did not appear as typed, when 'published'. Instead of consigning it to the delete page, it would be more assistance to make your site more user friendly to enable people to edit .

If the page 'in its present form', is un editable, then so be it, and if so, I will be furnish another version in the New Year, to replace it. Katch 22 were so much a piece of 60s to 70's era, that I feel it merits a page of history in an Encyclopaedia. https://www.katch22sixtiesband.webs.com Your Sincerely Mike Eastman. Mike-eastman (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Mike-eastman (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mike-eastman, it would be my pleasure to help you develop this article, however content must conform to our guidelines on notability: our general notability guideline specifies that a topic is suitable for a stand-alone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. I see that your article has been rejected quite a few times because it doesn't quite meet that standard. We have a list of criteria at WP:BAND which suggests when a group is likely to meet our notability standard, I think you should have a look if you haven't already.

I've gone back and fixed some of the markup errors in the code for the page, because open ref errors were causing some of the content to be hidden, and I think that might be part of the difficulty you've been facing with the Articles for Creation reviewers. It needs some work still, especially with ensuring the references are to reliable sources. For a band these should be books, or newspaper/magazine articles, and should be written by someone not connected to the band or its label. To fill in a reference, fill in the code: "<ref>your reference here, a web link, book title, etc.</ref>" (without the quotes) - it's vital to have the "closing" /ref tag otherwise the software that renders pages doesn't know what to do with it.

There will need to be reliable sources for the page to remain. I'll do some work on it myself and you can too, and if you have any questions feel free to ask here, or ask on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ivanvector. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 21:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Turq Qunox

I kinda wish you hadn't performed this reversion. The presence of the invective by the article's author is the best evidence to be found of the invalidity of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I revert racist crap by obvious vandalizing trolls on sight, no exceptions. You can link to the diffs in the edit history though. That page is probably speediable anyway, try WP:G3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons' greetings!

Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ivanvector, Hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Levdr1lp / talk 04:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year, Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Re: Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Hi there. I didn't happen to follow the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for UrbanVillager as it was happening, so I missed some comments, among which one of yours that specifically named me. So as I stumbled upon it today, I felt the need to address:

It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable.

That account's first interaction with myself was an assumption of bad faith and a revert of several different edits all in one fell swoop with the edit summary "rv". You can see for yourself in Talk:Boris_Malagurski/Archive 1 that I wasn't talking with a newbie who needed help. This was in October 2011. This account alone had been edit-warring with two others about some 17 byte change on that same article in April that year. Sure, you can easily say that more could have been done, but by the time someone is using Wikipedia lingo while edit-warring over details, it's usually well past the time for them to be gently nudged in the direction of guidelines and policies. It's one of the typical markers of WP:NOTHERE.

Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway.

This is something of an oversimplified way of looking at what WP:SPI does. There's a mountain of circumstantial evidence in those investigations that doesn't have to be dismissed out of hand simply because CheckUser results were borderline useless. CU logs only go back 6 months, and when we're dealing with years of abuse, it's just not going to be overly useful. It's certainly true that at least a handful of admins refused to rule it sockpuppetry on the basis of presented behavioral evidence alone. But I found it indicative that each time the discussion was messy and the rejections were summary rather than detailed, which tells me lack of free time to wade through all the crap had to have factored into the decision.

Which is to say, there can be no simple assumption there: it can only be based on a rather complicated series of breadcrumbs that are laid out in dozens, probably hundreds of links from the investigation case page.

If you don't like following all the breadcrumbs (who would?), just go over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive#13 November 2012, find the text "List of all of UrbanVillager's edits in article-space with context added by bobrayner", expand that box and read just that. That list is probably the most succinct way one can look at this. It's just WP:DUCK - it is an exposé of an account used by someone who doesn't really seem to have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind. Sadly this list also got drowned in all the noise.

Overall it is rather ironic that the topic of the previous paragraph was how the attempts to reason with them were insufficient. A more cynical interpretation would be that the attempts were excessive - had I not bothered to try to reason with them and repair some of the damage on those articles, I would not be WP:INVOLVED and would have had my hands free to start employing sanctions.

[1] in addition, this reminded me of a well-known abuser who had invoked the cry of "but they checked me at SPI and found nothing!" several times WRT his SPI case. That's a decade of Wikipedia abuse in there. Sadly, that's not far from this one.

Sorry for the belated rant :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joy! Yes, this is quite belated, the archived ANI thread is more than a year old, but I do remember it. I think that I pinged you then, if not then I should have and I apologize. As for the content of the thread, in the meantime I have had other interactions with UrbanVillager and others involved in that topic which have led me to the conclusion that there's much more interest in continuing the dispute rather than finding a solution and improving the articles, and as such I don't intend to comment on it further.

If you do decide to pursue this at the noticeboards again, please feel free to ping me. I may be feeling less blunt that day. At any rate I do appreciate you mentioning your concern here about the archived thread. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just note that that's been the trademark tactic of some of these abusers - to make discussions on their pet topics so toxic that everyone starts steering clear of it. :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I know, even Jimbo has commented on the "civil POV pushing" phenomenon. It's just that from my perspective as an outsider in this area, it looks like *everyone* is pushing their own POV. As long as we don't have a good community mechanism to solve these kinds of conflicts I'm staying out of them, and that means definitely not taking sides. We definitely don't have a good process at present; there was a follow up case to WP:ARBPIA in which Arbcom agreed that there is a massive problem with throwaway sockpuppets pushing an obvious bias, agreed that it is a serious problem that makes the area toxic and unwelcoming to constructive users, and then basically acknowledged that we're not willing to do anything about it, because of a fucked-up utopian view of anyone can edit. Anyway, we have a long way to go before we have a good solution to this problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We actually mostly do have a process, it's been the law of the land since 2007 - WP:ARBMAC. It's just necessary for people to be somewhat less shy in applying it. If you see an editor engaging in a violation of decorum - tell an admin, either via WP:ANI or via WP:AE, and they're perfectly free to act. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Durham Centre, NB

Hi Ivanvector, I hope you don't mind me using you as a Canadian geography expert. I came across Durham Centre, New Brunswick, a redirect to Jacquet River, and thought it RfD-worthy because it's not mentioned there. I tried to figure out exactly where this place is. Google Maps puts it in Belledune, near Jacquet River School, which makes sense since Jacquet River was amalgamated into Belledune. If it was ever a populated place, it's considered notable. What do you think should be done? --BDD (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for considering me a Canadian geography expert! I'm in Ontario, which is pretty far from New Brunswick, but from genealogy research I do know some history about various name and subdivision changes that have been ongoing since the mid-1700s in Acadia/New Brunswick. This link will help, and info from it could probably be built into the Jacquet River stub. However, it seems as though Jacquet River and Durham Centre (or Durhamville) were separate communities which were joined in 1976, and oddly, while Jacquet River and Durham are both in Restigouche County, Belledune is in the neighbouring Gloucester County. It might be better to redirect to Durham Parish, New Brunswick, but you might get better insight from WikiProject New Brunswick.

On the plus side, I found a couple maps of my ancestors' farms around the Moncton area on that site, so it's been a good morning overall! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow up with WPNB for further advice. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I see you think I am a Sockpuppet account. Whether or not you believe me, is up to you. But I am telling you, that I am not a Sockpuppet account.

It says it's because I edited something on John Boyega's page, all I edited was that he was going to be in a Nickelodeon web-series, which has been confirmed - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/01/06/john-boyega-will-star-in-nickelodeon-animated-web-series

In conclusion, I'm not a Sockpuppet account and I only edit for the greater good of Wikipedia (though, I have no idea why my edit was removed, since I had a reliable source).

Hi BeanoMaster, I sincerely apologize for that. I listed a number of accounts which were vandalizing the page, and included all of the "redlinked" editors within the last couple of days because at the time I couldn't check the edits. I did check right after that, saw that your edit was clearly not vandalism and not the same as the other accounts, and removed your account from the list with a note explaining why. It was bad form on my part. As for your edit, it wasn't actually removed, but it's hard to tell from the page history because there's been so much vandalism. Another editor moved the web series into the television section in this edit. You can see it listed there now. Again I apologize for the false accusation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello, While I do admit to jumping the bandwagon on the "traitor" vandalism on John Boyega, I looked at other people's talk pages and saw that they all lead to a same case under my username. While I really don't use this account anymore, it is my only account on here. But my edit was really all that I said it was -- a bandwagon. Just wanted to let you know since you seem to be linking them all to my name. Have a good weekend! -DCU

Involved editing of a MR

Hey there Ivanvector, when I first noticed you were editing the MR I was about to hit the undelete since collapsing information in something you're very involved it isn't usually a good idea. But then I noticed you were just collapsing our (yours and my) discussion, which I am fine with. FWIW there is now an ANI report regarding tendentious editing. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: thanks for the note, I don't have a lot of time to respond today. I'm trying not to edit that page at all so that someone will just fucking close it once and for all, but I JethroBT's collapsing of some of the off-topic bits seemed like a good idea to help whoever finally decides to get to it (it's been #2 on ANRFC for weeks now) and a subthread tangent about the appropriateness of pinging previous closers seemed exactly like something else that needed to be rolled up. I've been specifically avoiding suggesting that we leave it alone, because I 100% expected to happen exactly what has happened since B2C turned his attention on it again. I'll come back to the ANI thread a bit later, I have to do 700,000 budgets before 1:00. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Have a great day! Yes, I think this going this route was inevitable. And thank you for carefully collapsing things to help trim down the size. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The move review is finally closed... ANI still open, but not really being discussed. Have a great week! Tiggerjay (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. I updated the ANRFC section with a "done" tag so it should be archived shortly. B2C is aware of the ANI (he removed the notice) but nobody else has commented, so it's probably dead in the water. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I did receive two other emails affirming my ANI but they haven't publicly posted their comments. I think some people have just given up and avoid him instead... Tiggerjay (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MW: Oppose unblock?

You wrote "Oppose unblock" in "Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mystery Wolff". Presumably, you meant "oppose lifting of sanction", since he isn't blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: yes, that is what I meant, thanks for clarifying. You're right, they're appealing a topic ban, not a block. I'll revise. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Neelix_RfD_list

One category you may wish to add (or distinguish) is translations into another language (the ones you have as "literal translation", such as let do (presumably was derived from laissez faire or laissez-faire) are out of another language into English. There's a few up for discussion at the moment (not all Neelix) but I can't find a good closed example offhand. They're not always clear-cut deletes when they have affinity. Si Trew (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: you're right, I expected I would add that category, but I was just making up the categories as I went through the discussions, and I hadn't come across any of those yet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note on R v Elliott

While I am certainly sympathetic to the concerns that lead to your deletions on the talk page, I find it's best to let the ugly stand and involve administrators as appropriate. Just a thought going forward--certainly nothing I am strident about. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I appreciate your view on the topic, but I remove unsourced aspersions about living persons on sight, no exceptions, and I will revert if they are restored. There is a thread at ANI about this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine; I will certainly defer. I just wanted to make sure that ANI (or the appropriate board!) is involved. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course! And thank you for bringing it to my attention. Diffs of the offense are always available in the edit history. Well, they're not now, they were revdeleted, but they were at least available for ANI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Drawing the line between content disputes and vandalism

Hi Ivanvector. Hope the bees are well? Or perhaps that the infestation of them has cleared up? Whichever one is the reason for your absense, in any case. :)

I hope you'll forgive the presumption, but I'm in need of some advice which, in light of this situation, you may be uniquely situated to provide (or your talk page stalkers, if they are so inclined). Please do, of course, feel free to ignore this request if you'd rather not get into it; and in any case, please do not let it disturb whatever hopefully pleasurable activities are currently keeping you away from Wikipedia. No hurry, and no crisis; just a request for advice for if you're inclined and when it suits.

In any case, this is about the situation referenced above: a couple of IPs, and two redlinked user page + low edit count editors, who removed the—long-stable and cited to high-quality sources—section on Feminist literary criticism from The Tempest. When I requested page protection (extended-confirmed) you, at least initially, read the situation as a run of the mill content dispute, rather than vandalism, which by implication would make my reverts of them edit warring.

Now, I realise that parachuting into a situation like that, and trying to deal with it as one of a giant backlog of issues requiring administrator assistance, it is very hard to absorb all aspects of an issue and its full context, and you must necessarily act as best you can under the circumstances. Normally I would have just chalked it up to that and forgot about it. However, I've recently, in a completely unrelated situation, been directly accused of edit warring. That situation was in that gray area between BRD and 3RR, so I initially dismissed the specific accusations (not the general disagreement) as heightened rhetoric in a somewhat contentious discussion.

But when three long time editors—including an administrator and a former arbitrator—either implicitly or directly, and in two different situations, accuse me of edit-warring… Well, lets just say I start to seriously question my judgement on the issue!

Meanwhile, I'm trying to keep my eye on the 1500-ish Shakespeare articles (more eyes always welcome there!), where I routinely observe edits like these: [4], [5], and [6]. It never occurred to me to keep track of these (any more than any other vandalism on these articles), and I'm not sure how to search for them (can one search for the "Section removal" edit filter across a set of articles?), but there have been enough of these over at least the last two years that I've noted it as a specific trend to keep an eye out for. Previously I have routinely reverted these as clear and obvious vandalism, and though rarely relevant, have never considered WP:3RR (much less WP:EW) remotely relevant.

Now I hesitate and agonise over whether I should revert this.

The section has been stable since at least 2012. It's cited to journal articles in Shakespeare Quarterly, Women's Studies, and a monograph by Georg Brandes. Like everything on Wikipedia it can, of course, be improved; but this is still way above the average article section on Wikipedia. Let's say, by analogy, that it'd probably pass at WP:GAN just fine, but wouldn't quite meet the criteria at WP:FAC. And I'm only talking about WP:V and WP:RS here, not the actual content (on whose level of quality I have very little opinion just now, without studying up on it).

Surely, surely, there is no policy, or even guideline, that places the burden on me to gain consensus on the talk page to keep this section in the article? Surely section blanking can safely be presumed to be vandalism absent specific indications to the contrary? Surely even spurious rationales in the edit summary, as was the case on The Tempest, can be ignored in these cases if the editor in question has been asked to bring their concerns to the article's talk page?

For the life of me, I cannot reconcile these with constructive editing; and thus I cannot see what other way it would make sense for me to deal with them other than to revert them on sight, ignoring 3RR (under the vandalism exception), and requesting temporary semi- or extended confirmed protection when they persist. And yet, in view of the signals from trusted community members referenced above, I am forced to question my judgement on this. I am unable to square my own conclusion as to what policy and common sense suggests as the right way to handle these, with the censure from respected members of the community.

In any case… My philosophical crisis is certainly not your problem, and no manner or form of criticism of your handling of the RFPP is intended! Do, please, feel free to ignore this request entirely (I really won't be offended in any way!). It's just that since you read that situation so differently from me, and since, as an administrator, you have a lot of experience with such situations, and the application and applicability of the relevant policies, your advice on this issue would be very helpful.

PS. Oh, and I mean the general issue. The specific instances I've linked will sort themselves out one way or another eventually.

PPS. Sorry about the wall of text. I couldn't figure out any way to make it shorter. My bad!

Cheers, --Xover (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xover, thanks for your notes. I'm using an alt account because I'm on a computer I'm not sure is secure, but I wanted to address your comments. I'm not sure which other instance you're referring to, so these are mostly general comments.

On The Tempest, I did look into the history of the dispute and the editor removing the section, and my read is that they are a single purpose editor bent on removing feminist critique sections from articles on Shakespearean literature in particular. But our policy narrowly defines vandalism as editing clearly intended to damage the encyclopedia, not just editing with a difference of opinion. My take on the situation was that an editor with an opinion that the feminist aspect is irrelevant to encyclopedic coverage of Shakespeare was asserting their opinion, and so I treated this as a content dispute. I am certainly not meaning to endorse that opinion.

Admins are supposed to use tools like blocks and protection to stop or prevent disruption, and different situations call for different actions. I observed that the editor was repeatedly blanking a section and declining to discuss, but since it didn't seem like anyone else was inclined to discuss either, it seemed to me like protecting the page was the best way to get people to start talking and move towards a resolution. But nobody did, which I found unfortunate. When the editor reverted again as soon as protection expired, it was clear to me they were going to continue disruptively edit-warring to their preferred version, which is tendentious, so I blocked them. From the diffs you've provided I now suspect they evaded that block by logging out and editing on this IP range, which I especially dislike, and I'll be looking into that further when I'm back on my main account.

As for discussing the removal of content that has been stable for years, our guideline is bold, revert, discuss; my supplemental opinion is that when you find yourself stuck on step 2 you're edit warring, no matter how stable your version of the content. Wikipedia is built on continuous change and revisiting of opinions, and although it can be frustrating we owe some consideration to new editors with different opinions to consider their good-faith points of view, as well as perhaps discuss why something is the way it is. There's a limit (see also WP:AGF is not a suicide pact) but the balance is more art than science.

I've run short of time so I'll have to follow up on this later, but I hope this provides some insight at least. Thanks again for checking in.

-- Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations and advice. Much appreciated!

A couple of general points first. In re I am certainly not meaning to endorse that opinion. I must stress that my query is not an expression that I am questioning your judgment, but rather that I am questioning mine. I'd also like to be clear that, in regards the Feminism section I didn't write that section; I have no particular attachment to that section; do not believe it is a particularly well constructed section; am not particularly interested in literary criticism in general, and struggle particularly with the feminist lens (in short, it bores me); and have as a long standing todo list item for the article to rewrite and expand that entire part of it (hopefully with assistance from someone who is interested in, or at least competent to write about, literary criticism). In short, I don't think I'm particularly prone to WP:OWN tendencies here.

To the matter at hand… I see your point regarding the immediate situation. The editor in question has a registered account, with an edit history, and offered something purporting to be a rationale in their edit summaries. However, my reading of WP:VANDALISM is that it addresses the actions of this editor directly: Removing encyclopedic content without any reason [is vandalism]. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. The relevant section's stability (which implies silent consensus), high-quality sourcing, and relative NPOV and prose quality exclude the clause about the content being a readily apparent reason for removal.

Which leaves the judgement of the relative frivolity of the edit summaries. I had considered them obviously trolling, and an attempt to hide the vandalism, but I see that a case can be made that they are logically valid if one presumes that the editor in question actually holds those views. Removing section irrelevant to the main subject; fringe opinion (also possible OR); Removing content as per WP:FRINGE; "Feminist Critique" being promulgated as valid. Zero justification given on why the feminist lens, as opposed to an equally arbitrary 'inanimate objects lens', should be given a platform. I do, however, have trouble accepting that these reflect an honestly held opinion. And that, as best I can tell, is the crux of WP:VANDALISM: Assess whether the edit was made in good or bad faith. If in good faith, it is not vandalism […]. If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it. No matter what opinions one may hold personally, nobody can be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia (or society in general) considers feminist literary criticism to not be a valid form of criticism, that it is a fringe theory, or that a comparison to a hypothetical "inanimate objects lens" is valid. To me this is a clear indication that the edits were made in bad faith, and thus that WP:VANDALISM applies.

I will have to reflect more on this, and on your point about SPA vs. VANDAL.

However, let me also provide a further bit of context (in slightly jumbled order; sorry):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17

This is just from the four first articles I thought of that have a section that addresses feminst criticism, and only those edits which show in the edit history as "Section blanking" (you'll note that the edits by the editor discussed above do not show with that tag, despite removing an entire section). I see this kind of edit on my watchlist (about 1500 Shakespeare-related articles) often enough that I've noticed it as a pattern (but I wouldn't want to try to quantify whether the above set represents 99% or 1% of the total: I just haven't been watching that specifically until this latest incident). And it goes all the way back to at least 2009 (when, perhaps, auto summaries and tags were introduced?). This certainly colors my abiility to assume good faith in terms of assessing relevant edits against WP:VANDALISM.

Finally, if you'll be looking into possible WP:EVADE issues, you may want to look at the various IPs involved on relevant edits to The Tempest since 20 February; and in particular the account Arnol Chuarseneger (is that against the username policy btw?). As I mentioned initially, I have an itch that these all reflect either socking or off-wiki coordination (or both, of course), but I don't have anything concrete enough that it would be actionable. If that's the case then there's a VPN or proxy or something involved.

In any case, thank you so much for taking the time to respond! You've made some points I hadn't considered, or not considered in sufficient depth. I will have to reflect more on this. As you see from my reasoning above, I am not, yet, entirely convinced; but I do now, at least, see the reasoning behind what previously appeared somewhat illogical. So thanks again, and again apologies for, it appears, being utterly unable to be brief. :) --Xover (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)