Jump to content

User talk:Ivanvector

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



A barnstar for you!

[edit]
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)[reply]

Weigela florida

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

BQ

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request for review of protection version – Homeland Party article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)#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)[reply]

170.62.100.0/24

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yasuke the Samurai

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Homeland Party (United Kingdom)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Query

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sales taxes in Canada

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Bureaucrat changes

added Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

added 0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

removed GB fan
readded Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reform UK 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 21:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&oldid=1285003439"