User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ivanvector. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Ivanvector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Mentifisto 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, Ivanvector,

Merci de ta compréhension. I have been working in the last few hours at making the article conform to WP's standards. If there is anything in it that can be construed as non neutral, I'll be happy to have your opinion and advice about it.

Cordialement, --Christian Lassure (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing! Again, welcome!-- fetchcomms☛ 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned that Sean Midnight lacked references. I found and added a reference from the BBC to the site. I was unable to confirm coverage in The Sun, but tabloid newspapers such as The Sun don't always keep their articles online for a long time. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Midnight. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you check here in about five minutes from the timestamp on this message, it'll be there. DS (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your help on the article. i shouldnt have taken the page live when i did, as you were right in that there was too much promotional info on there. i was just going to put up all the info i had, then delete everything which didnt fit into the encyclopedic template. but i have a question, how do i take the User:Ivanvector title off and replace it with just The Andreas Kapsalis Trio? Kapsalis was recently written up in an article in Guitar player and i would like to add some new info. thanks again for the help. Joshfitzgerald (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)joshfitzgerald

thank you again for the help!Joshfitzgerald (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)joshfitzgerald

Sorry 'bout that. :D

Honestly there isn't any way to change attribution of an edit. If you wanted you could revert the edit with an edit summary of something like "edit by third party who stupidly forgot to log into his own account before making rather silly "see also" edit."

Alternatively you could forget about it. If anyone thinks Nicola Tesla isn't an appropriate see also for Mad Scientist they'll get rid of it and you aren't likely to draw any flack. Anyway, how's it going? Simonm223 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nawh, not going to bother with that. I have bigger fish to fry than my occasionally Tesla fandom. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you argued to keep it, could you please help clean it up? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as Wikigryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Ivanvector, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Ivanvector/Illuminate labs. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I expect DASHBot (or anyone) cares, but I had requested that Illuminate Labs be userfied in an AfD discussion some time ago, and then forgot about it. The use of non-free files was one of the issues being debated in AfD. Someone else came along and took care of the article anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, yeah I think that's the same site. Looks fine to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector, I do not think that you are justified in your opinion of deletion of the Debits and Credits artical pertaining to European standards (IFRS). There are some fundamental differences between these articals one of the most important, in my humble opinion, is that my article is easier to read and understand. I thought that it would be prudent to create another article instead of making huge corrections and changes to the American based article. I maybe a new wikipedia contributor though I spent some time writing that article from scratch and to have it deleted would result in a loss of important information and hard work. There are a few fundamental similarities between the articles though the terminology and clarity of the artical about IFRS is more understandable. Please respond with your comments to user: sweetmat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.106.240.10 (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector

Thank you for your constructive comments regarding the editing and merger of the article "Debits and Credits (IFRS)" on my talk page. As I am obviously a new Wikipedia editor I thank you for your advice and I look forward to implementing changes in my style as I "learn the ropes". Your assistance in the revision and editing of the original "Debits and credits" page will be most appreciated. Kind regards Sweetmat (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments regarding the word "transaction" being ambiguous. This should be explained, but not in the lede paragraph. If a cash receipt is being entered and the computer screen is headed "Cash Receipts", then there is no need to specify the debit to the cash asset account, because any entry on the cash receipts screen will automatically generate a debit to cash and a credit to the specified revenue account (except for reversals). So it is ok to refer to this as one transaction, even though the computer will generate two general ledger entries and two lines will appear on the G/L transactions report. But if a journal entry is keyed consisting of one debit to an asset account and 3 credits to various other asset accounts, then each debit and credit counts as one transaction, both on the list of entered transactions and the G/L transactions report. I am not going to attempt to add this to the article, so I hope you will. Greensburger (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pan Am Path, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Don River and Humber River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought I caught all the dab links already, but I will repair them. Ivanvector (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

well put. Dlohcierekim 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Disorientated is definitely a word. Please be more careful when "correcting" things like this. Try looking it up in a dictionary first. Your change to The Beatles has been reverted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

now I'm disoriented. Dlohcierekim 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly advice. Much appreciated. To be honest I'm still new and learning. GoldenClockCar (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved your comment to the bottom of my talk page, as it's customary to add new sections to talk pages at the bottom, unless you're replying to an existing thread. Kudos to you for your patience, it seems Wikipedia has given itself a regrettable learning curve for new editors lately. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your comment on the World Travel Awards and no significant coverage. What does that mean exactly? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22world+travel+awards%22&oq=%22world+travel+awards#q=%22world+travel+awards%22&safe=off&tbm=nws

I didn't spend long looking and while I couldn't find anything written about the awards themselves I think you can't deny that they are prestigious and well recognised by the coverage they get. E.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147. Thanks. Also Happy Christmas to you and your loved ones! :)Francis GoldenClockCar (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi GoldenClockCar! I hope you're enjoying your holidays as well. Your search turned up different results from mine, apparently since my browser defaults to Google Canada, but I don't really know why there was such a difference. In terms of significance, many of those results are coverage of the company mentioned winning the award, but significant neither for the companies themselves nor for the awards themselves. They don't show on their own that the awards are widely recognized as important (and it's not common knowledge) and a company winning any random award doesn't demonstrate notability - there are countless minor awards of no importance whatsoever that companies would nonetheless celebrate winning, because why wouldn't they?

However, there were a few sources buried in there which suggested that the awards themselves were significant, and I summarized some on the AfD for AFerry. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Referring to this edit, maybe "business function", or something along those lines, will be better? Accounting doesn't just refer to the profession alone; e.g. accounting researchers can study the processes or concepts of accounting without needing to reference the profession of accounting. -Well-rested^Talk 16:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. "Business profession" was just the first thing that came out of my head as I was pushing through a number of edits. I fully expected someone would come along and make it better. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change to "business function", pending any ideas on a better phrase to use! -Well-rested^Talk 17:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I share your interest in the matter. It looks like there are at least two re-directs that David Hedlund has resurrected after the articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of low-radiation smartphones: List of low-radiation smartphones and List of smartphones with low radiation. You added a speedy deletion to the latter; I added one to the former. User RHaworth deleted the List of smartphones with low radiation article and associated talk page, but shortly thereafter restored the artcicle but not the talk page. I have enquired about this on this talk page

Further, User David Hedlund appears to be recreating the content of the list of "low-radiation" phones at Specific absorption rate; the latest list of mobile phones there appears now to only include "low-radiation" phones. There is no rationale for removal of other phones that were previously on the list. I will engage at the SAR article talk page. --papageno (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I think I might have tagged the article that was recreated already, and I was going to ask RHaworth about it but I'll go look at their talk page. You'll find there is already a discussion going on at the SAR talk page about what to do with the list, and it's been going on for a while. I've just gotten involved recently, but I see it as problematic. I'll stick to commenting on that talk page as well. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments here and at the talk page of User RHaworth. Do we really have to wait, though? It seems a speedy deletion won't fly (the one I added to List of smartphones with low radiation has been rejected by being remved by an admin), but perhaps a regular AfD could? I admit I am not very experienced in AfD. Perhaps we could group all the offending redirects into one AfD based on the original article AfD outcome? Thinking a little bit too much out loud! Happy New Year. --papageno (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. Technically since these are now redirects they will go through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I am going to nominate the two that I know of right now. Ivanvector (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

PS I will be on vacation from 2013-01-04 to 2013-01-11 inclusive and may not be able to participate in discucssions about the topic at the various locations during this period. --papageno (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! In summary, it would violate BLPPRIMARY if the subject was living but they are not. However I have other concerns about the edit. I answered on the talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Proposal 10, it is "out of scope" for the reasons stated. However, I think it would be a good idea if this functionality were part of the Wiki codebase, whether or not it gained support on en-Wiki.

A much simpler task would be having the code updated to have an additional user-right, "notconfirmed" which would cancel out all of the additional privileges given to auto-confirmed editors.

I would support such a user-right if, at least at first, it would only be applied to editors who would otherwise be blocked. I don't know if the community would support it. In any case, such a change would require a change to the code-base. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. That's my thought too - even a "last resort" before blocking or banning. Attempt to educate troublesome users, then attempt to educate through some sort of mediated edit process (like what we ask COI editors to do, but enforced by the software) then if they still don't get it, weed them out. Except I wouldn't want this to apply automatically to new users, that would scare people away (it would have scared me away). It's maybe out of scope but I don't think outside of the spirit of PC2, but I see how the intent is not the same there, and I understand that it might be a technological challenge. I have no plans to drag it out on that RfC anyway, it wouldn't be productive. Ivanvector (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you restored warning on a vandal IPs talk..that's actually not necessary. It's his talk and he can do anything with it ....he will probably delete them anyway..so it would be a futile edit for you! Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 07:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that one of the warnings that was removed was a 4im, and the user then continued to vandalize, leading to another level 4 within minutes, I thought it was warranted. Normally I don't touch other users' edits on talk pages. Thanks though! ;) Ivanvector (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

agree with you, he already had many warnings and a final warning....some people don't change! ;) Thanks for your fixes to the article BTW Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 07:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that The Beaches was ever outside the old City of Toronto boundaries. East of Victoria Park Avenue is in Scarborough. The reference given shows the current boundary as Victoria Park. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually didn't realize there was a reference at all. I've commented over at Talk:The Beaches. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ivanvector. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Neutral section.
Message added 18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is on my watchlist, I saw the section and I'm considering my response. Ivanvector (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goods and Services Tax (Canada), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PEI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector/Woodbine Supply fire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to editors: I have copied the discussion above to Talk:Paul Ainslie as it is relevant to that article. Please reply there. Ivanvector (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector - Thanks for the connection. Not even sure if this is the right way to respond since I'm not very tech savvy. Not sure how all of this is connected and as you noticed, protocols followed. I will try to follow your suggestions to learn more. Verifiability for Mayor Candidate from Toronto City election office is <http://app.toronto.ca/vote/candidateListAll.do>; my software patented invention number is <http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week50/OG/html/1397-2/US08602793-20131210.html> my published books have the ISBN numbers; there are a lot of newspaper articles from my Mt Everest expedition but I do not know how to access the newspaper archives from 25 to 23 years ago. I do have the hard copies from those years. I do have some current press releases but I am not sure if this is OK under verification rules. My campaign platform that I am running on and that I stand for and what I had included in wiki is on my website www.erwinsniedzinsfortorontomayor.ca; I agree it is hard for me to be as objective as independent editors and sure could use some help to make it objective.

Can you help with this objectivity?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

(ErwinSniedzins (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC))

Have you looked at the information about the other candidates? Based on the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, ... - in short, on reliable sources that are independent of the subject and relevant to the mayoral election. I fail to see how either your software invention or your Mt Everest expedition are relevant here - coverage of neither is likely to discuss your candidacy for mayor. Without sources like those that discuss the other candidates, we can't write much about your candidacy - in particular discussing your platform would require third-party coverage. Huon (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify your reason for hiding my argument at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied at the AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I wonder if you can help. You have left a warning on my talk page regarding being involved in an editing war.

Unfortunately there is an anonymous user who is posting false and slanderous comments about my company.

I would like to know how I go about having this info blocked or removed?

The page is Wikiwigmore edit: the page is Wigmore, Herefordshire Ivanvector (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seades (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the warning on the IP user's talk page as well. The three-revert rule says that you cannot perform more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours, except in very specific circumstances such as blatant vandalism. I reviewed the edits and in my mind they don't constitute blatant vandalism - they may be problematic but what it comes down to is you disagree with the information presented and you reverted it, many times, which violates 3RR. You should stop, even if the other editor does not. There are better ways that won't get you blocked.

As for the problem on the page, I agree that the information is negative but it appears to be properly sourced, and we don't selectively exclude reliable information because it is negative. We're not a publicity site. If you think that the information is inaccurate or unreliable (I would support that argument) you should try to start a discussion with the IP editor on the article's talk page, or if the problem is very serious you can ask for help at the administrators' noticeboard. Ivanvector (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Seades, while I was editing the above block in response to your question, I noticed that you're continuing to fight this edit war even after being warned. Seriously, stop. Ivanvector (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed you referred to this as "your company". Do you work for the school? If so, you have a conflict of interest and based on what's happening over there you should definitely back away from editing that page, at least for now. Please read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Ivanvector (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't really understand what your saying.

The links are not well researched.

This site is a publicity site, if it wasn't then the poster would not be using it!

If I have a conflict of interest so does the poster, so can you explain to me why he is able to continue to post?

Thanks again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seades (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict with SineBot) I'm working on it, but I agree that the information doesn't seem very reliable. Opening a thread on the talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seades (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point just be patient. I've requested that administrators look into this, it just might take a while for someone to see it. You should leave the page alone until the issue with the IP user is resolved. Ivanvector (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have tried to add information to a wikipedia page and it was all deleted. The information that was on the page before I edited it was either inaccurate, or needed to be updated considerably.

I don't believe there was a conflict of interest as I attributed all of the information.

Your conflict of interest stems from your username, Comms bvc, which I've interpreted to mean that you represent the communications department of Bow Valley College, the article in question. The information that you added was unduly promotional for an encyclopedic article. I undid your edits, and then reworked the article with the useful information you provided which did not read like an advertisement.

Before continuing to edit, please have a look at our plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please note that paid advocacy is quite seriously frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.

If you have more questions, feel free to post here or at the Teahouse. Ivanvector (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but not in articles) so that other editors know who they're talking to. After your comment, type ~~~~ which changes to your signature when you save, like this: Ivanvector (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Content redacted per action at administrators' noticeboard. Ivanvector (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Attack sites are websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors. Harassment of those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter. It discourages participation, and may put people in danger. These websites' activities include the malicious posting of abusive comments, physical threats, libel, and attempts to disclose the private information of Wikipedians.

(website blacklisted - Ivanvector (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)) in no way meets this criteria. I am providing only factual information about the school. I am not, nor is the link site doing any of the above...PLEASE let me know your motivation as you are protecting the wrong party by your censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A trial run is available at Business/Accounting task force. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that looks really good. Thanks! Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Beaches may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] is Mary-Margaret McMahon. She was elected on October 25, 2010, by a popular vote of 65.1%.<ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/city-votes/results-wards-31---32-beaches-east-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Big Four (Indian snakes) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• #[[Indian Cobra]], ''Naja naja'' ([[Tamil language|Tamil]]: {{transl|ta|ISO|நாக ராஜா}})) <br>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Ivanvector (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling you're really starting to POV pushing. Kingjeff (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair, only one of us has their trigger finger on the revert button. Would you like to ask for a third opinion instead? Ivanvector (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A "trigger finger on the revert button" doesn't point to POV pushing. Based on my observation, you look to be the one pushing your POV. Kingjeff (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have used words like "feeling" and "look to be" and you taking it as an outright accusation? Kingjeff (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You said that I'm pushing my POV, and then later you said it again. You might think that adding fluffy qualifiers like "feeling" and "look to be" makes your accusatory statement mean something else, but I don't. Yes, I am taking your twice accusing me of POV pushing as an outright accusation of POV pushing. Ivanvector (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But it can't be an outright accusation with the way I phrased it. Kingjeff (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you "phrase it". If you didn't mean to call my edits POV pushing, then you shouldn't have called my edits POV pushing. Ivanvector (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But it does matter how I phrased it. If I had worded it differently, then it could have been an outright accusation. Kingjeff (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you not twice ([1], [2]) call my edits POV pushing? Ivanvector (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Antisemitism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The material I added to Cyrillic was directly taken from a standard philological source. I added back the mention about Denisona after she decided&#151;as a "lone wolf" authority&#151;to undo my proper edit.

Do y'all have nothing better to do than concoct problems that don't exist and then threaten contributors about them? I see that, in many other cases, nothing but a generic "This article has issues with unsourced material" warning is slapped up, but&#151;when I cite chapter and verse&#151;some wacko complains about it.

Please respond in ADULT. THOUGHTFULLY ARGUED fashion.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit contained an assertion about another editor, which is wholly inappropriate for article content and quite disruptive. Furthermore, you have been repeatedly warned for your disruptions and adding nonsense to articles. You are on the path to being blocked. If you need help, ask for it.

Also note that personal attacks are strictly forbidden. You are required to assume good faith and treat other editors with respect. If you can't contribute constructively and respectfully, then kindly go away. Ivanvector (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sales taxes in British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goods and Services Tax. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to clarify on the deletion of the article on Contractor Relationship Management. I ask a favor, please send me text of the deleted article so I can re-think and find more sources(I do not have access).

 To directly access the deleted revisions of a page, type "Special:Undelete/<target>" in the search box, where "<target>" is the name of the desired page.

I need to better explain in the article that it is a software, whereas the concept of Contractor Management differs in scope. Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia, greatly appreciate it and look forward to learning the ways as I read up more. Zutralife (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zutralife (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zutralife! Thanks for your contribution. I'm not an administrator, I don't have the authority to delete pages. What I did was edit the page to create a redirect because I think the article you created doesn't quite meet the general notability guideline. Every page edit is kept in the page's history which you can see from the "View history" tab at the top of the page. Your article's history is here. You can even undo my edit if you want, but I think you should try to find more sources first. Also, when you write on talk pages please remember to sign your post by typing ~~~~ after your comment. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 13:47, 8 August 2014‎ Ivanvector (talk | contribs)‎ . . (223,043 bytes) (+753)‎ . . (→‎Yes, all list entries must be cited: reply) (undo | )

(cur | prev) 13:46, 8 August 2014‎ The Mol Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (222,290 bytes) (+752)‎ . . (undo)

You just had to one up me, eh?

Sorry for the pointless message, it's morning, and I'm not in the best state of mind. When I saw those numbers I just had to bring it up. moluɐɯ 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Wasn't intended ;) I didn't overwrite your edit, did I? Ivanvector (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You just happened to have exactly 1 more byte. moluɐɯ 14:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ed Miliband. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Ivanvector, you're doing some great work on the Toronto municipal election 2014 page. A project I'm working on is collecting and releasing related data that you might be interested in: http://everycandidate.org All of the data is accessible from the "Open Data" page. Cheers, Phillip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.8.111 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Unfortunately it looks to me like your site would be unsuitable to use here as a reliable source, because it appears to be a self-published website which builds content based on user submissions, and we can't verify the expertise or reliability of such contributions. It looks like a fine site but I don't think it can be used here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ask for a speedy deletion "Article appears to be a hoax. No WP:RS. No assertion of WP:Notability}}" and you beat me to it. Good job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find a good speedy deletion criteria to flag it under, but it felt like an awful lot of bureaucratic nonsense to have to go through AfD for it. But redirects are cheap. Incidentally I was going to ask, since you added it to the list at Mountain dog, if you knew in fact that the breed was real and I just couldn't find it. But then I figured you were probably just cleaning up. Ivanvector (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You were very quick. The addition of the breed was a SNAFU or oversight.

I am, however, rather proud of the Mountain dog list which I created. It is a formulation that appeared in lots of dog literature, without putting it together in one place. The phrase has been loosely used for years. I happen to know something about them, as I've owned a Bernese Mountain Dog, a Landseer Newfoundland, and two Leonbergers.

A list sometimes is a useful device. I have a couple of other lists I did. List of magic museums and Trial films (as a lawyer I knew something about this), both of which I thought brought together some useful stuff in one place. These were things that were not easily found elsewhere on the internet. By and large, its hard to put together a list in wikipedia and not have it get deleted. Thanks for your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI:

A tag has been placed on Alpine Mountain Schnauzer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to November 8 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[1991]] &ndash; [[Riker Lynch]], American singer and bass player for the band [[R5 (band)|R5]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw that as a reviewer you approved this edit. FYI, the article has actually been protected, through pending changes, to specifically avoid this type of unsourced additions of BLP information such as birthdays. The reviewer right is supposed to be used to uphold Wikipedia's policies such as WP:VERIFICATION. In this case, this unsourced edit should have been rejected. Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K.! Thanks for your note. I appreciate your advice, however as I noted in my review summary (which I don't know how to link to), the information that was added in that edit was properly sourced through the linked articles, which conforms with WP:BLP and WP:V in my experience. Thus, the information was verifiable (I verified it, the source is here), the edit was not a violation of the policy and was not vandalism, so there was no reason to reject it. I see that you have reverted the edit; I am not going to undo your revert but please consider attempting to verify the information rather than just deleting it next time. Thanks again for your message. Ivanvector (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

K-pop is a very abused area in terms of adding unverified information relating to birthdays and positions. Most of the time there are no supporting sources or if there are they are in Korean and are not easy to find using English search terms. It is also not practical and time-consuming to verify the information by going to multiple member sub-articles individually to verify the information shown in the central group article. This problem is further exacerbated given the large number of K-pop groups most of which have many members. The burden lies with the editor who adds the information to provide sources which will comply with verification, not with the editor who removes it. If an editor does not provide the source required for WP:V s/he should be made aware about the use of sources or about providing an edit-summary when adding the unsourced information. Unfortunately I have no access to your review summary either. Had I seen it I could have added the source myself. Alternatively you could have helped out as well, but I don't want to put you under pressure. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying - K-pop is indeed a popular target for information being added by eager fans and inexperienced editors with no effort to provide sourcing, and those edits are clear BLP violations and are required to be reverted. When I come across such an edit, I revert it with a note to the policy, and in most cases I notify the editor (though for IPs with little edit history I usually don't bother). The edit we're talking about was not such an edit. I verified the information in two clicks. It was not a BLP violation and should not have been reverted. Per WP:MINREF, there is a very limited scope of information which is required to be sourced where it appears, and in my experience a living person's birthday does not fall within that scope unless it is disputed. Of course it is ideal to provide a source, but providing an inline citation for every single bit of information in an article (even a BLP) is citation overkill and just makes articles unreadable. There was no requirement to provide an inline source in this case, in my opinion, thus the policy was upheld, and the edit was approved. WP:PC is for preventing edits which are clear violations, not for preventing edits which are imperfect. Also, the pending changes log does not seem to have an entry for this article. Ivanvector (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V, "All content must be verifiable." There are no exemptions, BLP or not. Also per WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". There are very good reasons for removing unsourced material, especially in K-pop articles. If unsourced information were to be allowed to enter such articles it would cause endless edit-wars between fans to keep changing the birthdays and positions, as it has been happening for a long time. Even fans cannot agree on birthdays and positions and they keep changing them. Only by following WP:V we can bring some sense of order to this edit-warring madness. Most of the time I become aware of an edit in a K-pop article when a fan has changed a birthday or position. And this happens often. And it happens to sourced information, as well as unsourced. Only when the changed birthday or position is referenced I know that the edit is unconstructive. If they are not cited, noone knows and therefore an edit to information which is unsourced invites more edit-warring by someone who does not agree with it in the future. This becomes an endless cycle of reverting. It is much safer and better therefore for unsourced birthday and position information to remain out of the K-pop articles because, if unsourced, it keeps being edit-warred upon by fans. There is also no issue with citation overkill when one deals with individual information such as individual birthdays of the members of a group. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Ramage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alain Cote. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. Oh God. Hoooooo boy. No. No thank you. No. No no no no no. Ugh, no. Ivanvector (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be better to withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet (2nd nomination). I suspect the single purpose anon who attempted to nominate it had ulterior motives. A few years ago, those who created these pages (mostly a bunch of British right wing establishment socks) had huge battles with some Irish editors (also mostly a bunch of socks). At the time they caused immense problems and Arb cases. It would be a great pity to resurrect all of that. These remaining Irish/baronets pages were scanned for notability with a fine tooth comb and many were deleted, the remaining ones were felt to be notable. Please don't permit the whole can of worms to be opened again. Giano (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am assuming good faith in completing the nomination, and I think that it's not my place to withdraw it, notwithstanding the intentions of the editor who originally placed the tag. I consider it their nomination, not mine. It's not obviously in bad faith, in which case I would have removed it as vandalism. Unless there's an odd ArbCom ruling that says that these articles can't go to AfD, or we can demonstrate that the nom is a sock of a banned user, I think we have to let the process complete itself. Ivanvector (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it I'm the one who needs to walk? I get falsely accused and I'm the bad guy? BS. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, given the editing environment at Firelands I'm not surprised you got pinned at SPI. A number of brand-new users showing up in an edit war to support your opponent's side of the argument doesn't look very good, and the only real defense we have for that is SPI. For the record I think it's reasonably clear from your evidence that you're not a sockmaster, and if you've been falsely accused you've got nothing to worry about. SPI will sort out who's in the wrong. But opening an obviously retaliatory SPI is something an angry person does that just gets them into more trouble, and that leads me to think you'd benefit from taking a short break and coming back later after you've had a chance to cool down. Ivanvector (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool down, cool down...that's all I ever hear. Why doesn't this thing GET DONE?! It's easy to say when IT'S NOT YOU that's going through this. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a backlog at SPI, or maybe just not enough admins' eyes on it. The last SPI I opened took 14 days before a clerk even looked at it. If I knew how to expedite it I would. Ivanvector (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

All I want is for this thing to be wrapped up. What is taking so long? I'M THE VICTIM HERE. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not post that there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.76.235 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit, where I removed a video you posted? The reversion was actually originally done by MusikAnimal and I agree with their reasoning. This video in particular documents the death of a person and isn't appropriate to link from Wikipedia. As for policy, the video contains snippets of copyrighted news footage, which is copyrighted no matter which way the authors of the Youtube video compile it, and we can't link to copyright violations. Ivanvector (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have just done it myself, but I kinda wanted to have a record of why it had been done, and AfD was obviously not the right place to bring it! Thanks for doing it. An R is not a DAB, but I do think the two are kinda fraternal twins, well a double act maybe. Si Trew (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I'm taking this off the ANI in order to not 'clog its arteries'. In the recent SPI (brought by UrbanVillager), I was the accused, so you WOULD have seen my name. If you mean older SPI's and COINs brought against UrbanVillager in 2012, my involvement was VERY marginal, but you may have seen my name. Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, it would have clogged the ANI page unnecessarily, and no need to ping me on my own talk page, just so you know. I did see your notes about UV bringing up your early involvement and took that into consideration when making my comments. I think that there's an off-wiki political dispute here that I have no real awareness of and don't really want to get involved in, but I will stand by my reasoning that the topic ban is unwarranted at this point, from the evidence I've seen. Topic-banning an editor with a stated interest in editing only that topic amounts to a de facto community ban and there has been nowhere near the level of misbehaviour that I would consider warrants such drastic action. I've seen these disputes before and they can be resolved civilly without editors being blocked, but I'll say this is probably the worst, or at least the one that's gone on for the longest time. I'm on my way out but if you like I can answer this in more detail later tonight (I'm GMT-5). Ivanvector (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fuller answer not necessary, also apologies for mis-reading your comment, it was NRP's name not mine you were referring to. It would be pointless/wrong to turn your page into an extension of the ANI, but a few comments:-

I (mostly), avoid 'Balkan' topics like the plague, (because I am insufficiently knowlegable, or interested and because the atmosphere is frequently toxic. So, though I have made many 'grammar fixes' on such pages, I have rarely got involved with content).

The disputes over this film maker however are mostly NOT of the Balkan kind (groups of editors supporting the preferred versions of history of one or another ethnic/political group), UrbanVillager has native level Serbian and Joy is Croatian (though Joy has not edited on these pages for about 3 years), the majority of other editors have NO connections, political or ethnic. I get the impression however, that admin/other editors lump the 'Malagurski' pages in with other 'Balkan' disputes.

I will freely admit to a 'pov', which is that the Malagurski articles have consistently inflated the importance and achievements of an EXTREMELY controversial and fairly obscure film maker (film student when some of these pages were created), whilst consistently excluding any information as to WHY his films are controversial (eg stating what the films' claims ARE). The wish to see such information included, in my opinion, is an attempt to give the reader some context, not pov pushing. Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you yesterday like I said I would, I was out later and somewhat more inebriated than I had planned. My concern with this being a Balkans-related dispute is that Malagurski's work (apparently - I'm not familiar with it) presents a certain controversial point-of-view regarding the breakup of Yugoslavia, and there are (possibly) discretionary sanctions in effect on that topic. Controversial topics attract editors with a POV whether they push it or not, and I generally try to avoid them for just that reason. For the record, I don't think you're pushing it, but at least the very recent history shows persistent edit warring with UV, and I think you said yourself that you were warned about it already. The admin's early decision on the ban that they proposed leaves a bad taste in my mouth too, to be honest, and I kind of think that the whole thing should just be shut down so that that poor decision doesn't come back to haunt potential future disciplinary proceedings. Unless it was very obvious that the ban was warranted, and I don't think that it was all that obvious. Ivanvector (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies not needed, You owed me no explanation. I am the first person to admit that this film maker presents real neutrality problems for WP. The claims are not only about the break-up, but about key events in those wars and the future status of Kosovo. Many claims are VERY controversial (NATO targeted schools and hospitals, international courts faked evidence, the list is long and many claims would be meaningless to 'the average reader' … … these films make Zeitgeist look like Bambi).

Regarding the early closure of this ANI, I agree and was very surprised, I have no wish to see anyone 'kangaroo-courted'. Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

sorry! Corrected now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educationtemple (talk • contribs) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When you have time, could you cast your eye over Rummoli? I wrote the article and I made the board in the pic. But looking back it does seem rather British English. I wanted to set the rules down sort of as according to Hoyle, to a British audience who have never heard of it, but didn't want to overdo it and it would be better in Canadian English, I think.

I also got "Scribbage" from somewhere, but the WP article has nothing to do with it. I think some time many years ago I tried to upload photos of Scribbage, it was manufactured in Canada you have a five by five board to lay playing cards on and essentially play crib both across and down at the same time, a good game manufactured in the late 1860s (sorry I mean 1960s) but only kinda known in Canada. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look on my mobile this morning but I was half-asleep. I will have a better look later. WP:ENGVAR says that a particular English variant should be used for subjects with strong national ties, and I don't think this does, so British English is probably fine. There are not a whole lot of differences anyway. The game you describe is different from the game I remember as Rummoli, but it's been years since I've played - I'm probably just wrong. Ivanvector (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it's not known in Britain at all. My family in Ontario, who are kinda a mix of French and English Canadians, used to play it at Christmas but maybe it is kinda just "house rules"... unfortunately when I did the woodburning on the board, nobody had told me how to spell "Rum[m]oli". I thanked them heartily for pointing out my mistake after it was finished rather than before... Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 7#Welfare check you commented about user:IvanVector (capital V) being a redlink. I'm responding here to avoid getting too far off-topic in that discussion.

User names and user page links are, like the rest of the encyclopaedia, case sensitive except for the first letter. You can legitimately create a doppelgänger account user:IvanVector if you want (and if the system will let you), redirecting the user and user talk pages to your actual user and user talk pages respectively or adding the doppelgänger template. If the system doesn't let you create the account, then you can redirect the pages anyway. I hope this helps. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have seen some doppelgänger accounts but I'm not sure I want to bother. I suppose I could create it just to avoid potential "suckpuppetry" (someone using the alternate account to impersonate me) - I guess I'll consider that. I wasn't really suggesting we should create that redirect anyway. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Turns out I can't create that account, actually. The software doesn't allow it ("username is too similar"). I think I will create the redirect; if it's improper someone will just delete it. I wonder what happens if you type "IvanVector" into a ping template? Ivanvector (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@IvanVector: Let's find out. Si Trew (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the fact that I just saw this now, I'd say the ping didn't work. I guess you'll have to spell my name right from now on :P Ivanvector (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! Sorry about that, Viktor. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, thank you for your very thoughtful proposal. I would support it. Simply because it can't get any worse. Even if you got all 3 admins from the US, the situation couldn't possibly get any worse. If the proposal were to move forward, I would hope that the three editors were not all from one country, but it really doesn't matter. I would like to point out that the editors against this proposal are the ones who currently control it. Even if nothing comes out of this, I sincerely appreciate you taking a leadership role and attempting to solve the problem and most of all, for thinking outside the box. Also, what is ARBCOM? Do we now go there automatically or does someone need to do something first? Thanks. USchick (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think the opposers brought up valid concerns, especially with the capability of unfamiliar editors to wade through the possible neutrality pitfalls, and with risk of western systemic bias, however I think those could be overcome with careful forethought. Still, this sort of experiment really needs to have a substantial majority supporting it or it would be doomed from the start.

ARBCOM is the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which is like the project's high court. Someone (I'm not sure who) will prepare a proposal for the committee to hear this case. If they do, editors will have an opportunity to present evidence regarding the dispute and the conduct of the editors involved. The Arbitrators will then review the case, and have the power to issue binding directives on the editors and the pages involved, or really anything they deem is appropriate. I've never actually been through an ArbCom proceeding myself before so I don't know all the details - I may have commented on one here and there over the years. Only the most serious cases where every other resolution method has been tried and failed are even considered by the committee, but it seems that's where we're at with this page. If you watchlist this page, you'll see if a case gets opened.

I'd say honestly that it's pretty likely that your own conduct is going to be at issue if a case is accepted, so I'll make a friendly recommendation that you familiarize yourself with the process as much as you can. I'll comment if and when I can. Best of luck. Ivanvector (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to comment here. Won't say much, because I've already said an awful lot at that other thread. But I want to add to my comment about the irony of ymblanter closing that thread while I was composing a reply. He took me to AN/I a few months ago, accusing me of more sins than Satan. You see, he hates Vladimir Putin, and was making this really obvious in some very POV edits and some Talk page comments. I had been getting in his way. He lost the case at AN/I (no boomerang, unfortunately), and has now added me to the hate list he has that contains Vladimir Putin. He is very biased on anything to do with Russia and the Ukraine. He has declared that he is Russian himself, but I'm pretty sure he lives in the US. If he had any principles at all he would exclude himself from any such topics.

Obviously he wouldn't have known that I was busy composing the response I had been invited to make (although anyone who understands time zones could have guessed I wouldn't have yet seen the invitation for me to do so - he knows where I'm from), and it was just coincidental that it was my post that fell outside his close, but I saw yet another example of a very involved editor doing a little too much on that topic. Of course, North Americans ignoring the rest of the world's time zones is just another small part of our systemic bias too. (I note that you understood.)

Enjoy those refreshments you were seeking at the beer shop. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it does operate like the American and British Middle-Aged Men's English Wikipedia sometimes. Unfortunately there's not much we can do about it, other than be aware of it. I recognize your concerns about ymblanter but I think you should not read too much into this particular close. It was becoming pretty obvious from the fading away of the comments near the end of the thread (while you were composing your response, I'd guess) that this was beyond AN/I to resolve and it was going to ArbCom, so there was no more to be said. Another editor commented that they were going to close but thought it would be better if an admin took care of it, and I was considering closing it myself anyway when ymblanter did the deed.

Anyway, enjoy your (Friday?) and good luck at ArbCom, if this does make it there. I'm going to go take off, eh? Ivanvector (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposal, I missed the vote. SaintAviator lets talk 04:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain what is external links here, as many of them said, but unable get it.--Vin09 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. When I say "external link" in that case I mean a link from some other website that links to Wikipedia. For example, if I had a blog and I wanted to link to a Wikipedia article I would make my link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peda%20Bommalapuram%20Puram. When we move the page here, if we don't have a redirect from the old name to the new name, then the link that I have on my blog doesn't work any more. We try not to do that.

But usually, when people here talk about external links, we mean a link from Wikipedia to some other website, like this: http://www.google.com is an external link. Ivanvector (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closing these RfDs, but when you close a discussion as something other than delete you need to put the {{old rfd}} template on the redirect's talk page. When doing that I normally also tag is for the same WikiProjects as the target page (using class=redirect and no importance parameter), but this is optional. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like Thryduulf beat me to thanking you for closing the RfDs, but asking you to use {{Old RfD}} in the future. I went ahead and added {{Old RfD}} to the discussions I could find that you closed and did not have that template on the talk page. Also, if an RfD results in redirecting to a section when it previously did not, I usually add {{R to section}} to the bottom of the redirect page to categorize the redirect; this is optional as well. Steel1943 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice! We seem to be going through a bit of a crisis of admin attrition so I've been working on clearing the logjam in some of these backlogged boards where I can. I think you've corrected me already but I'll have a look through my contribs. I was aware of the templates but didn't know it was required, so I was only adding it to redirects that already had talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are technically required, but certainly they are very strongly encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and Steel1943: One more question, about closing China Mallavaram: the RfD was withdrawn so I closed it. The talk page of the redirect had been moved to the new location as well as the redirect itself, so it had a R from move template on it. I replaced all of that with the old rfd and wikiproject templates, because I don't think talk pages are normally moved/redirected that way. Could you take a second look? Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• In regards to all referenced pages above, as well as the RFD closure: I'm not seeing any issues. Looks as though the RFD was closed properly, the talk page was moved where it was supposed to go, and the leftover talk page redirect was replaced with project tag(s) and the Old RfD template. Everything looks quite proper with no errors. (However, I did go ahead and include "class=redirect in the WikiProject banner, as Thryduulf stated above.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I left the class tag out because the template seems to have detected it regardless ("This redirect does not require a rating ...."). Ivanvector (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep that all looks good. The class= sets the categories for the Wikiprojects that use redirect categories distinct from NA class, for those that don't it has no effect but will if they choose to in future. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ivanvector! Hope you're well. I had question for you regarding my draft submission of Datari Turner at AfC. Is it possible to remove the big red box that says 'submission declined' since it was done by mistake? All good if not, was just curious about it. Thanks. JacobPace (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)