User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 20

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

UTRS appeal #97275

I have the notion that I recently read you responding to someone who had a similar problem while proxy-blocked. I can't remember the solution. (Was it just to go somewhere else, reset the password, and come back?) Perhaps you can help? -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: replied on UTRS. The outlook is not good, unfortunately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now closed the appeal. You don't need to know that, and there's nothing more for you to do, but I mention it just in case you may be interested in seeing what I wrote in response to your comments. JBW (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@JBW: thanks. One thing that might be worth explaining: any user can send a password reset to another user, if they are logged into an account, or if they're not logged in and their IP is not blocked. You need to provide the email associated with the account, and as a security measure the form will not tell you if you got it right. It just says something like "if the details you provided match, then the user will be sent a temporary password." There is no way to know if the email actually was sent. It was worth a try anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have never tried to send a password reset email to another user while logged in, so I can't comment on that. However, I can assure you that if I am not logged in I can send a password reset email to any user, provided they have an email address attached to their account, I am not subject to an IP block, and I know their username, without having to know their email address. I have done it before, to help users unable to get a reset email because of an IP block, and to make doubly sure I have just logged out of my account and sent one to myself. JBW (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just sent one to you. I have no way of knowing whether you have received it, but if you have, then I can promise you that I don't know your email address. JBW (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@JBW: that's interesting, are you using Special:PasswordReset to do that? It always prompts me to enter the username and the email address (like I described), but I haven't tried logged out, my work VPN is blocked. Also I did get your emails (no worries about the heads-up) but I didn't get your password reset. I sent myself one earlier today from my alternate account so I don't think it's my mail server blocking them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, as I said, I have never done it while logged in, but in case there is some difference between doing it logged in and logged out, I have now sent a password reset email to my alternative account, JBW3, while logged in as JBW, and it worked fine. Special:PasswordReset has fields for username and password, but it says "Fill in one of the fields to receive a temporary password via email" (my emphasis) and it works with just the username. I have no idea why you didn't get my password reset, unless I misstyped your username or something. I will try once more, copying and pasting your username to be sure, and I'll be interested to know whether it works this time. JBW (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you reset the password while the IP is blocked, though? I thought that was also a problem (on top of how Special:PasswordReset doesn't work to send the email in the first place), so maybe I misunderstood. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently yes. At least once, and I am almost sure more than once, I have sent a password reset email in this situation, and then been thanked by the editor, who told me that it worked. JBW (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Aha! I've got it! The message that came up after I posted another request on Special:PasswordReset says "Only one password reset email will be sent per valid account every 24 hours in order to prevent abuse". JBW (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases

It looks like your naming of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1+1=yes broke the bot's parsing, which is leaving a red linked "close" case in the set. Maybe rename to second oldest? Izno (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it was fun trying to get the tags to work on that, and I didn't check what happened to the table. I'll rename it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI Investigation

I am unsure of the exact rules surrounding SPI Investigation discussions, am I allowed to respond directly to another editor, or should my comment be contained to a different section? Should I even respond at all? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerby_Composite_School

Hi:

The Lockerby Composite School Wikipedia page was recently edited to include controversial information about a murderer, a pipe bomb threat 25 years ago, and inappropriate teacher controversies. I am not affiliated with this high school, but noticed that other high schools in this school board (Rainbow District School Board) do not have such commentaries and the original write-up of this high school compared to other Rainbow District School Board currently on Wikipedia.

I went back to revert these controversial edits (by creating a Wikipedia account), but the person who added the controversial information, re-instated their edits. There was a note to say to contact/reach out to an Administrator on a list to review changes made. As such, I selected you to please review the controversial edits made.

Ultimately, I do not believe that the editor (Kline) used appropriate judgement to edit the high school Wikipedia page by writing several controversial information pieces. The editor (Kline) appears to be 'slandering' this particular high school.

Thank you for your considerations - I appreciate you looking at the page, history, and contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerby_Composite_School 208.96.69.226 (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) While I won’t mention your username here, please log into your account before making any edits, including leaving messages on talk pages.

It seems there’s an edit war between a more positive and more negative version of the article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral tone and giving information the proper amount of emphasis. So you’re partially correct—the page could benefit from more balance. My suggestion would be to address Kline directly, as he rightfully noted that the revert was unexplained at the time. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I noticed an inconsistency in your messages about your connection to Lockerby Composite School. In this message, you mentioned you're not affiliated with the school, but in an earlier message, you said you're editing on behalf of the school. This raises concerns about a conflict of interest, which is likely why Diannaa issued a notice. If you are affiliated with the school in any way, it's the most ethical course of action to be honest about that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi:

Thank you for replying pomptly - I appreciate it.

I will address the concerns with Kline directly.

In terms of affiliation, I do not have any stake, volunteer, or work for this institution, but did attend to the school for a brief time many decades ago.

Again, thank you for your time and I appreciate your input. 1958LCS (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge eighth anniversary

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Ivanvector for writing the article Pituamkek National Park Reserve during the eighth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Sucharit Bhakdi

Template:Editnotices/Page/Sucharit Bhakdi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Ivanvector a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 Canadian federal election

Howdy. I'll start an RFC at the 2025 Canadian federal election page, if you'll formulate the RFC question. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm confused. I think you just wrote that we don't need another RFC, but you're here saying I should start one, after I also tried to say that this doesn't need to be settled now since it'll all change in a few months anyway. I'm fully on board with respecting the result of the 2021 discussion until there's a reason to believe that something has changed, I'm just pushing for internal consistency in the article. Simonm223 is the one suggesting we should push an RFC now, maybe you should ask him. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to an editor with a minor disagreement over this utterly insignificant point. Although one of their recent comments did seem like they're coming to this with an unreasonably positive view of the PPC's standing in 2025. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's true, while Ivanvector and I know each other and are friends we don't always agree on Wikipedia topics. I suggested an RFC mostly because it seems like the argument is going around in circles regarding the interpretation of a four-year-old RfC. It seems like, if people are going to make this urgent, then a refreshed consensus makes sense. However I have no strong feelings one way or the other on including minor parties on the page TBH. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talking about Juno cast

Juno (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Look @Ivanvector, all I'm saying is, Juno is the mother of Juno's child, she's been pregnant for nine months BigStoneonWiki (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@BigstoneonWiki: I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. It just doesn't need to be said that Juno is the mother of her own child. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to argue with you, I just saying BigStoneonWiki (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry on the eligibility of a page on Requests for page protection/Increase: Difference between revisions

Gang rape#India has been subject to routine vandalism every month. Which you said doesn't qualify for it. Just to confirm, is this actually normal for wikipedia; the page is seriously meant to be like that forever? Random IPs can get their way for months unguarded? ContributedEditor (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@ContributedEditor: Thanks for your question. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We always consider protection requests against that fundamental principle, and in general we only protect pages in response to active, ongoing disruption, when there is no better solution. Usually that means many disruptive edits by multiple editors in a short period of time, or it can mean a pattern of disruptive editing over a longer period of time. On gang rape I don't think either of those are happening: you found an error added several weeks earlier (so protection today would not help, in fact it might prevent someone else from fixing other errors), and before that I went back all the way to November to find just one edit that I thought was vandalism. I also don't think there's a pattern here, since the last time the article was protected was all the way back in 2023, and that was only for two days. You can read WP:PREEMPTIVE for more on this. Cheers! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Successful page protection level decrease requests without the need to ask protecting admin

So as I mentioned earlier, I have had several page protection level decrease requests approved - and never have I ever had to ask the protecting admin for permission on any of them. Examples include Eric the Actor, Jonghyun, John Stephenson (actor), Colin Powell, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Ian Waddell, Herbert Sandler, Bernie Madoff, Mike Weatherley, and Gene Wilder - and those were all last month, and all for similar reasons.

Looking closer at these archives, it appears that Daniel Case was responsible for approving most of these requests. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally believe that ending protection on an article about a dead person, imposed while they were still alive, where there was no controversy about the death nor lingering controversy about some aspect of their lives, and where the six-month BDP window has lapsed, is something that does not require consulting the original protecting admin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's fine, Daniel is a competent administrator and WP:IAR is policy. I would not have approved any of those requests if the protecting admin was active, per the instructions on the page, but Daniel can make his own decisions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And for an article like Pope Benedict XVI, although the reason in the protection log is BLP issues and that's clearly not still a concern, they're a controversial figure who led a controversial organization, and I don't know the article history to see if there are other reasons why their biography was under protection continuously for 15 years, so I would ask the blocking administrator before doing anything. If the instructions on the page say that you should ask them, and you haven't, I decline the request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Or at least I would write below the request, "Hey Ged UK, you protected this article 15 years ago, does it still need to be protected?" and let them do what they like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ivanvector. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey Ivan, have a look here. Indo-Greek 16:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

IP sock puppet evasion

Hello. That block evader (2.97.98.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.97.212.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is back again, this time as 2.97.219.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their IP addresses geolocate to the UK. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sjones23: yeah, they pinged me a bunch of times. Ad Orientem already blocked their latest IP but 48 hours isn't long enough for this vandal. I've added a three month rangeblock, the range is not particularly busy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies: I see you've had some interaction with this editor too. The 48 hour block was definitely not their first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm sounds like I need to get tested for herpes then, Ivanvector? Drmies (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Heads up: the IP has now been blocked for a month. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My last Hail Mary

Hello, Ivanvector. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

To follow up, user is getting bold. See this where a SOCK was blocked for attempting to create a page on the 16th. The page was reverted and protected. Then an IP messages the suspect SOCK who is not yet blocked on the 19th, who then recreates the page in draft space on the 21st. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jimmy Carter on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Drbogdan TPA

Hello; please consider revoking talk page access from Drbogdan due to talk page abuse. Thank you! He appears to be intent on treating his CBAN as an editing restriction, still suggesting the same low quality edits that got the CBAN rolling and now continuing to link his New York Times comments on his talk page. This is in addition to updating the spammy information profiles across a couple of dozen other-language wikiprojects since his CBAN... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You sure seem to edit his talk page a lot, and take an active interest in beating him down. Perhaps take his talk page off your watchlist. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam

You sure seem to edit his talk page a lot

Other than responding to his unblock request and reporting what I'm still convinced was him editing logged out post-ban, I haven't touched it since July of last year.

take an active interest in beating him down

I have an active interest in dealing with spammers and people using wikipedia as a web host. Since he was CBANned, he ended up editing his livejournal to link to diffs of the removed content and went and updated the following international wikipedia projects to include more spammy material on his profile:

These were inactive for years until after his CBAN, when he updated the links to his personal stuff and started using links on his social media to other wikiprojects he'd never edited. He already had a diff from the Luxembourgish wikiproject deleted that he was trying to use as a link to "His profile" across social media. He also has created a truly massive backlog of garbage that I and other editors have been systematically working through for months, and dozens of pages still have the news bylines and image galleries he added. I'm not engaging with him or attempting to harass him, but the fact that the abuse is ongoing and cross-wiki warrants addressing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Floq, I'm no fan of gravedancing, but I agree with Warren here. Drbogdan's community ban was specifically for mass-uploading low-quality science churnalism and outright linkbait articles and leaving them to other editors to determine if they were appropriate for inclusion. That's exactly what they're doing on their talk page, and it's not appropriate. I'm going to warn them and if they don't stop then I will revoke TPA. Of course I can't respond to their work on other wikis, you'll have to take it up locally. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I really am trying to avoid any kind of gravedancing. For the most part I've left him well alone except to respond to the above linked contiuned WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA/WP:NOTWEBHOST issues, which I'd consider ongoing abuse issues rather than previously adjudicated ones I'm gravedancing over. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

SPI archive notice vs SPIarchive notice (there is surprisingly a difference)

Hi Ivanvector! I just wanted to reach out as an FYI that when {{SPI archive notice}} is used in place of {{SPIarchive notice}} it throws that SPI case into Wikipedia:Malformed SPI Cases, as was the case with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Summerbreakcooldown until my edit. I personally am a bit surprised that it complains but just wanted to raise as I just discovered this myself. @MolecularPilot: is this intended behaviour? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for fixing this. I'm looking into the fix the bug, this doesn't seem to be intended behavior! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor and MolecularPilot: thanks both! {{SPIarchive notice}} is a shortcut to {{SPI archive notice}}, I've always used the direct link because template redirects are prone to vandalism. If the code that detects malformed cases is relying on the redirect link to be used instead of the direct link, that code is bad and needs to be fixed. I'll leave that to you folks who know what you're doing :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It is now fixed to consider both with a space and without a space valid. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, MolecularPilot! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

ACC request #353892

Just a heads up that I sent ACC request #353892 to you since it was caught by a checkuserblock that you created. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You blocked my IP for no reason

I can't edit Wikipedia because you have put a blanket block on my IP range, even though I have done nothing wrong and barely even ever edit Wikipedia. Please stop abusing your privileges and lift the ban. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You are, in fact, able to edit, since you were able to save your edit to this page. If you're trying to edit from a different IP that is blocked, then you will see a block message which tells you what to do if your IP is blocked. If you can't follow those instructions then I can't help you - I don't mean that I don't want to help, I mean that I literally cannot because I don't have the necessary information. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I did follow the instructions and my appeal was denied on the basis that my IP "is not blocked" which doesn't square with the fact that when I try to edit an article, it tells me my IP is blocked as part of a range, and you are the culprit. I was then accused of using a proxy or firewall (which I am not doing) and instructed to follow the same instructions I had already followed. What is the path out of this bureaucratic nightmare? I did nothing to deserve this. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your claim that you don't have the necessary information. What more do you need besides my IP address? 162.226.44.134 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

What I mean is that the fact that you are editing on this page means that the IP you are currently using, 162.226.44.134, is not blocked. There are no entries in its block log (see [1]). That means that if you're seeing a block message, it must be related to a different IP, and I have no way of telling what that IP is, or it could be a restriction just on the page you're trying to edit, or much less likely it could be a system error. Could you link to your appeal that was declined? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:162.226.44.134

I keep getting told by admins that I'm not blocked, and yet when I go to edit ANY article it tells me I am blocked from editing articles. I truly don't get it. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no other IP. I am connected directly to the internet from my phone on my home WiFi network. No VPN, no proxies, no tricks. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, that didn't help, I was hoping to find out that you were getting the message from a different IP and could investigate from there. Let's try something else: which page are you trying to edit when you see the block message? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It happens on every article no matter what, but here is the latest one I randomly selected, went to the edit page, and got the block message:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooele_County%2C_Utah?wprov=sfla1 162.226.44.134 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is the message:

The account 162.226.44.134 has been blocked by Ivanvector for the following reason(s):

Disruptive editing, squelch rapid sock creation, talk access revoked for misuse while blocked. Please see WP:ACC to request an account. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This network range has been used improperly by someone in order to disrupt Wikipedia. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent further incidents.

If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what's happening. I found that message in my block history but it's for a different IP. But if that IP happens to be your mobile network, and you happened to be connected to it while trying to edit, then the block could have "followed" to your new IP. As far as I know that's not supposed to happen, and unfortunately there's no way for me to clear it, that sort of action is supposed to clear automatically in 24 hours. This also doesn't explain why you seem to be only blocked from editing articles. But here are some things you can try:

Clear your browser's cache, or try using private/incognito mode, or use a different browser altogether.
Wait 24 hours and try again. Not ideal, I know, but it should work.
Create an account to edit, even if you're only going to use it temporarily until we figure out what's going on. If you have an account then I can add a flag to it so that you're not affected by IP blocks.

In the meantime I'll post at WP:VPT to see if this is a known issue, or if there's something else we can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help and sorry for the frustration on my end. I'm using the Wikipedia app so AFAIK there is no browser cache to clear. It has been over 48 hours already since I first noticed the issue. The block says it's in effect until October, which is why I care about it. If it were just a matter of a day or two, I wouldn't worry about it and would just move on with my life. 162.226.44.134 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fanning Grammar School

Hello, Ivanvector. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Fanning Grammar School".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bird's nest (hairstyle)

Hello, Ivanvector. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bird's nest".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Ed student account blocked

Hello. I'm the instructor of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Texas A M University/Technical and Professional Editing (Spring 2025) and one of my students, Mala1027, was apparently blocked today by you. When she showed me what was happening on her dashboard, we saw that she can't even edit in her own sandbox. I'm not sure if this is a shared IP issue, but I have 22 other students in this course, and we have been working on Wikipedia simultaneously so far without any issues. I wanted to check with you to see why she was blocked and how we can proceed from here to get her unblocked as soon as possible so she can complete her assignment. Thanks. Dr.ozkul (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dr.ozkul, thanks for your message. Mala1027's account is not blocked, but there is an underlying IP block on one of the networks that they have used, which was not set today but actually close to a year ago. That block is set to "anonymous only" which means it should not affect any user while they are logged into their account, but they might have logged out accidentally, or something else may have gone wrong. I have added the IP block exempt flag to Mala1027's account so that they should now not be affected by IP blocks at all as long as they are logged in. I'll also leave a message on their talk page.

I checked as much as I can to see if there might be another type of block affecting them, but I did not find anything. If you keep having problems please let me know, I will see what else I can do. Thanks again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I just contacted Mala1027 and she is still having this issue. We are trying to sort this out and would appreciate your help. I have also contacted our assigned Wiki Education expert to get some help.

Since Mala1027 has no editing privileges right now, I will copy the block notification she's seeing for your reference: "The IP address or range 2600:387:0:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked by Ivanvector for the following reason(s): Disruptive editing, squelch rapid sock creation, talk access revoked for misuse while blocked. Please see WP:ACC to request an account."

We double-checked and made sure Mala1027 is logged in. This error still pops up. I noticed the IP address in the notification is quite unusual, and I can't exactly pinpoint why it looks like that. Dr.ozkul (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dr.ozkul and Mala1027: The IP address in the notification is a version 6 IP address, which is a newer standard from the IPv4 numeric notation that dates to the early days of the internet. The newer standard has been around for nearly 30 years but has only really been deployed widely on consumer equipment in the last 5-10 years maybe. That's not what the problem is here - something seems to have malfunctioned with the settings for this block, or possibly with Wikipedia's ability to accept edits from the IP range entirely. I have now removed the block, so if that was the problem then you should now be able to edit. But I am also getting an error when I try to load contributions for the IP range, which is very unusual and suggests a problem that's beyond my ability to fix. I'm going to open a bug report with our developers. Once again I'm very sorry this is happening; I'll update you as soon as I have more information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector I think we're good for now. Mala1027 can edit right now. We'll keep you posted if we run into any issues again. Thank you very much for your time. Dr.ozkul (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For putting an end to the garbage going on here. I have been specifically harassed by this user from multiple different IPs, so to see administrators standing up for me means a lot, especially given their direct attacks on my queer identity. I can not thank you enough for your help with this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Weigela florida

Could you delete the redirect you created, Weigela florida? The general consensus at WP:PLANTS is that species should not be redirected to genera. I'm making stubs for that genus. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 16:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abductive: strange that I would have created that redirect at all, this isn't a subject I'm all that competent in, and I almost always add redirect categories when I create redirects. But here we are. All I can say is that there is some content at Weigela that suggests that this is a type species, so that would make some sense as a redirect. I'm not quite sure what you're asking - if you're trying to create an article on the species you can just overwrite the redirect. If you have a draft you're trying to move there then I'll be happy to delete the redirect for you, but you should have a look at {{db-move}} for future use. Let me know. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make a draft and see how it goes. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 19:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

BQ

I concede the 'electoral performance' table. But the survey-in-question, isn't about the top infobox. That being said, the result of having 'Quebec only seats' in the electoral performance table, will only encourage one or two editors to continue agitating for changing the top infobox. A mess that's being introduced, which will only create more problems, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I was working on changing the infobox back but you beat me to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a survey about the BQ's top infobox, at WP:CANADA. Best to settle once & for all, while the 2025 fed campaign is ongoing. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of protection version – Homeland Party article

Hello [[User:Ivanvector]],

I’m writing to respectfully request a review of the version protected in the recent full protection of the article [[Homeland Party (United Kingdom)]]. I believe the article was locked on a version that contains content and sourcing which may not comply with Wikipedia’s core content policies—including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:PREFER.

Specifically, the current version:

Locks in multiple recent edits that introduce contentious and defamatory labeling without sufficient attribution or balance.
Relies heavily on partisan activist sources such as Hope Not Hate, Searchlight, and Red Flare without balancing from academic or neutral outlets.
Appears to give undue weight to interpretations and accusations without verifying whether they are supported by the party’s own statements or official documents.

Per [[WP:PREFER]] and [[WP:Protection policy]], I respectfully ask that the page be temporarily reverted to the last stable version prior to the current dispute, or that editors be given a chance to reach consensus before locking in a potentially biased version.

I would welcome the input of an uninvolved admin or the opening of a formal discussion if needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

– ~~~~ Fileas Fogg (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss these matters on the article's talk page, which will go much further towards establishing stable content for the article than any revert to a prior version will. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector, thank you for your response. I’ve started a section on the article’s talk page to raise policy-based concerns about the version currently under full protection: Talk:Homeland Party (United Kingdom)/Archive 1#Request to Reassess Protected Version Due to Policy Concerns. You're welcome to weigh in. Best regards, ~~~ Fileas Fogg (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

170.62.100.0/24

Don't partial block a VPN! That range is a Mullvad VPN and should be hard blocked. wizzito | say hello! 20:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wizzito, thanks for your message. My action here is a targeted block, I'm not allowed to say more here because of the checkuser policy. Our policy on proxies is that we routinely block open proxies, and Mullvad's VPNs are not open as far as I know. We do sometimes block closed proxies when they're being used abusively, but we always have to consider that blocking an IP range like this could also impact many other users who haven't done anything wrong, and sometimes the full block goes too far. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yasuke the Samurai

Hello User:Ivanvector

I have been directed to your page to discuss the obvious inaccuracies of history regarding a certain Yasuke. I am here to provide several documents from accredited articles and books to reinforce my stance and hope that you will allow for the proper amendments to this most controversial Yasuke page.

for instance on why many would argue that Yasuke was in fact a samurai has been shown below and why I believe they are inaccuracies:

- López-Vera’s A History of the Samurai likely exaggerates Yasuke’s samurai status and role beyond what primary sources confirm, introducing details (e.g., meals) that lack backing. It’s not “inaccurate” in the sense of inventing events, but it’s interpretively bold—potentially misleading without caveats. For a site such as Wikipedia it overstates evidence per WP:VER and WP:NPOV.

- Hernon’s Tokyo Weekender (2020) claims Yasuke ‘reached the rank of samurai,’ however, Shinchō Kōki (Elisonas, 2011) and Ietada’s diary don’t use this term. Stipend and sword don’t exclusively denote samurai status (Turnbull, 2003), and scholars like Goza Yūichi (Sundial, 2025) suggest he was a retainer. Hernon’s reliance on Lockley’s speculative African Samurai overstates evidence—per WP:VER, this should be qualified as debated, not fact.

And now why I believe this topic should be either amended or discussed further:

The Yasuke page overstates samurai status. Shinchō Kōki (Elisonas, 2011) doesn’t use ‘samurai,’ only noting stipend and sword—common for retainers, not unique to warriors (Turnbull, 2003). Historians like Goza Yūichi (Sundial, 2025), Kaneko Hiraku, and Watanabe Daisuke argue he was a koshō or servant, not a samurai, given no land or formal vassalage. Per WP:NPOV, this should be ‘debated,’ not stated as fact.

Link Elisonas (book), Sundial (Medium), Turnbull (Osprey), and summarize Kaneko/Watanabe from X with caution (secondary).

I'm not a raict or a bigot I just don't want history to be miscontrued with unfactual evidence. I'm not suggesting that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai. only that the evidence for proving it are so vague that all sources proving for or against it should be taken with a grain of salt as they say. If you wish for a more in depth display of my sources then I shall put together the necessary documents and send them through. I hope this message finds you well and hello from Austalia. SirChadington (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello SirChadington, welcome to Wikipedia. Whoever directed you to post here is mistaken: I have no authority to rule on content in this article nor on any article, and it's not a topic that I'm particularly interested in nor knowledgeable about. I just check in once in a while to moderate. Wikipedia editorial decisions are based on consensus, and consensus to describe Yasuke as a samurai was determined by a "request for comments" which is archived at Talk:Yasuke/Archive 3#RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article. You can see that it was a very long discussion, almost two months of discussion and debate. If you want to suggest that the article should say something different, first you must read through that discussion to understand why these decisions were made, and then it's expected that you will come with arguments and sources which have not already been considered and debated, because nobody wants to debate the same things over and over and over again. For example, from a quick scan of that discussion I see that Elisonas 2011, Turnbull 2003, and Hernon 2020 were already discussed in that large RFC, and both Lockley and López-Vera are always fairly central to these debates, so if you want to start a new discussion then you need to start from a position where all of these have already been discussed. On the other hand I don't see mention of Goza Yūichi (which is a source newer than the RFC so that makes sense), nor Hiraku and Daisuke but we would likely not accept social media debates as reliable sources.

I also must tell you that Yasuke's samurai status is considered a contentious topic, mostly because of how extensive and divisive these debates have been. Contentious topics designations give administrators some additional tools to limit disruption in traditionally divisive topics. We often recommend (and sometimes require, but not for Yasuke) that new editors build experience editing other less divisive topics for some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia norms before venturing into contentious topics, not because we think you'll do anything wrong but because these topics often get heated and personal, and we don't want that to be new editors' first experience on the project.

I hope that this doesn't turn you off of editing and being part of the Wikipedia community. If you have any more questions please feel free, or you can post at the teahouse which is a friendly discussion space for new editors. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Homeland Party (United Kingdom)

So, the astroturfing campaign at Homeland Party (United Kingdom) is still attracting IPs and newly minted accounts [limited to the Talk page for now]. The full PP having been expired, I think we still need an upgrade to ECP considering the dedicated nature of this campaign without any arguments in good faith. Gotitbro (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Might need semi Talk page protection as well; considering the barrage. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Ivanvector,

I was looking into User:Shubhamgawali1 and found you blocked this editor for using multiple accounts and for paid editing. But there was no notice on the editor's user talk page so I couldn't look into the reasons for the block. Are they connected to an open SPI investigation? If so, could you provide me a link to it? Thanks for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liz! I listed the accounts this account is confirmed to at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joyland2017, but I think that this group is not technically related to that case. Their suspected paid editing focuses on Patrick Treacy and Draft:Patrick Treacy, which has also been created under several other different names. Their deleted contribs have more evidence. I didn't put much effort into figuring out which specific sock farm they belong to because their network is so spammy anyway, but now that I'm looking more closely I think they are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dorothygordz, a sockfarm focused on whitewashing Vinny Troia. I'll add some more notes to that SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sales taxes in Canada

I had read the source which states: Transitional rules, which would be implemented by way of regulations made under the federal Excise Tax Act (Canada), would determine whether the current 10 per cent rate or new 9 per cent rate would apply to transactions that straddle the April 1, 2025 effective date. No indication if it would be implemented on Apr 1st or later. Adakiko (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko: yes, that language is confusing, but I'm an accountant and deal with HST rate changes pretty often. The source is confirming that the tax rate changes to 14% effective at midnight on April 1, 2025. So for example if you walk into a store and buy a pack of gum today, you'll pay 15% tax, but if you buy the same pack of gum tomorrow, you pay 14%. But say you're buying a house, and you agreed to the purchase last week but your sale isn't going to close until April 10, then which rate applies to the sale? That's an example of when the transitional rules come in, and they're weird. But even with transactions where the transitional rules apply, the tax rate is still 15% on March 31 and 14% on April 1, so that's what our article should report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)