User talk:Ivanvector

Thanks

Hi Ivan,

I was going to reply to you on the arbitration request page but I had already written a novel over there, and I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to do this while it was still open - but now it's closed, I just wanted to say thanks for what you said. I have no idea if I'm doing this right, but here we go:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for standing up for newbies like me who have no idea what's going on BugGhost🪲👻 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I know you rejected my AN/I but I understand why it happened, so no hard feelings there. I appreciate your detailed ECR clarification above, the arbitration request about it, and then you defending me when my motives were questioned. The arb request was a bit daunting but your (and Novem Linguae's) responses are probably why I'm still logged into this website.

Thanks,

BugGhost🪲👻 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Partial IP Block

Hello,

I've recently faced a partial IP block by you. I am a new to wikipedia and have made some genuine edits. So, can you review this block and help.

Thanks

TheRealBilal (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheRealBilal, welcome to Wikipedia. The network where you are experiencing an IP block is partially blocked because some other users have used that network to write advertisements on Wikipedia, which is against our policy and our terms of service. Their edits damage Wikipedia, and so the network is partially blocked to limit their disruption. Unfortunately that means that any user connected to the same network will not be able to create or edit drafts or move any page, which are the activities that cause the most harm. You should be able to edit any other page on Wikipedia as long as it is not protected, and when your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits you will also be able to create and move pages as long as you follow our policies. Please see Help:Your first article for more information.

You may also want to read our policy on the use of multiple accounts. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI

After being blocked for a month both back at it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection%2FIncrease&diff=1228216139&oldid=1228212906 Moxy🍁 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

EFFPR revdel

Could you revdel all your edits up to, and including, my edit at rev. 1228510570? The "filter log" and "user filter log" buttons open up the filter log for the page name that was put in, where you can still see the page title. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rusty4321:  Done, thanks for catching that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Threads

I see this is getting out of hand. I devotes are fine to impose their preferred version. I also see if is fine for users to simply propose noting and just be in opposition to something and claim it is the only gig in town. I have restarted the discussion as a clean break. I’d like to point out I made two clear proposals which were engaged with by two other users. The four claiming to have done notes in consensus have not engaged and have just been oppose, with actual reasoning. I am just frustrated and feel like I am being pushed around and having ck structure discussions an attempting diverted off I. To obfuscation comments which feel like just oppose what ever is do. I am just really POed I’m proofing stuff that a courr ed of users are ranging with if but others are just trying to steamroller and ignore anything I propose. What’s the point if a discussion if no proposals and ready are to be given other than oppose everything and actual proposals and reasons are to just be ignored. I am just departed as all o want is engagement with pfoposskk k scans actual props ok x not done word keys discussion about what s ‘default’ is or weather the bot is deprecated.

If the proposals I was making were engage with I would be wanting to scream WTF. I just want an actual discussion on the issues with numbers. Not this impose what I feel like and attack the only person making proposals.

Please lend a girl a hand and engage with actual proposals and not he part of the no no no brigade. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@PicturePerfect666: I feel like we've had this discussion before, but you seem to not be accepting good-faith criticism. I am trying to engage with your new discussion in good faith, and I disagree with your position on archiving but I am not out to get you, I just want to find common ground to get through the dispute. Wikipedia is a collaborative project with millions of editors in every country on Earth, and you will from time to time encounter people who don't agree with you. The way we resolve those disagreements is through discussion, and the nature of this process is that sometimes we don't get our way, or have to compromise to move forward. And sometimes, even if you are sure that you are right, you need to be able to recognize that you're beating a dead horse and that it's okay to walk away. If you don't then yeah, you'll get frustrated and you'll start to see everyone as being out to get you, if you don't do something that gets you blocked or just walk away from Wikipedia entirely. I've been there, it sucks. You might like the essay don't give a fuck, which isn't meant to be taken seriously but I like it as a reminder not to get too personally invested in anything here, it's just a website after all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

PP666, there are actually really good reasons to include the most recent discussions -- even if they're years old, sometimes -- at an article talk. It lets people easily see what's been discussed most recently at that article talk. It lets people easily see who has been involved in those discussions. I very recently came into a talk page with a concern, and saw that the same concern had been discussed three years earlier, so I knew who to ping. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)