User talk:Ivanvector

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Template:DailyBracketBot

Due to real life commitments I will likely be away from Wikipedia and unavailable to respond to inquiries here for unpredictable intervals over the next few months. My email is available and I receive offline notifications for messages left on this page, but if you need immediate assistance with a general administrative issue, please consult another administrator or checkuser, or post at the administrators' noticeboard. Cheers.

Click here to email me. Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do not use {{ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification.

Template:History of the Philippines

Hello Ivanvector. I recently made a request for the reduction of this template's protection level but it got denied. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: I'm sorry to say I agree. Philippine history topics have been targeted by a long-term vandal for many years, and they learned years back that if they vandalize the template, it propagates to the hundred-or-so pages it appears on. If you have an edit to suggest on the template, you can request it on the template's talk page with the {{edit template-protected}} template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Can we at least reduce the level of protection to extended confirmed users? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And oh, my request was denied because I was not able to consult you first before making it. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue

I wasn't sure how to address this, or whether to address it at all, but since you strike me as a thoughtful, conscientious type who would probably prefer to be apprised here it is. At ANI you recently wrote, I truly believe that EEng is a smart person, is capable of grasping how this incident was a misstep, and is capable of taking on these comments and addressing this situation more respectfully in the future. However, what EEng has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand (or that he doesn't care) is that his many followers are not so capable, and will follow his cruel example. This idea of "followers", which others have jokingly referred to as a "brigand", is pretty risible, but asserting that such editors are incapable of grasping the seriousness of the situation and they will knowingly or unknowingly follow his bad example (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) is a bit sanctimonious and pretty insulting. I'm too thick-skinned to be offended by it personally, but I thought you might appreciate being prompted to reflect on it a bit. That's all. Regards, nagualdesign 18:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mitt Romney 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 22:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about The C of E's discussion

Thank you for closing the discussion about The C of E. I was just wondering: given the lack of discussion regarding Serial Number's comments, as well as how late they came, do you think it would be appropriate if a new discussion specifically about what to do with The C of E's restrictions (i.e if they need to be extended or the status quo could remain) could be started, or has that ship sailed by now? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I'm of two minds about this. For one, it's really not fair to hang the threat of sanctions over an editor's head like was done here, not that it's any one editor's fault how this was handled. But imagine you make what you think is a reasonable ban appeal, and the discussion turns in such a way that you're now facing the prospect of even more serious sanctions, but every day for a whole month you log in to Wikipedia and find that a decision still hasn't been made. Nobody deserves that. On the other hand, it's clear from all the discussions that editors see C of E's behaviour at DYK as quite serious, especially when the topic involves living persons, and many editors (often different editors between discussions) have commented that further sanctions are warranted and/or that the current restrictions aren't preventing the harmful behaviour. I really thought about dropping a BLP ban as arbitration enforcement, but I think that's too close to being a supervote given the discussion.

Protecting Wikipedia from publishing harmful material about living persons is of utmost importance, but The C of E is also a living person, and this whole experience has no doubt been stressful. I can't tell you not to start a discussion, but personally I would let it be for now, because the ordeal might just have knocked enough sense into C of E to behave. If it didn't, I can find the block button pretty fast. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I have a dog-related question for you

Like I’ve asked on my talk page, do Norwich Terriers come from Norwich, or somewhere else in England? This is not explained on the Norwich Terrier article, but should be, as it gets a little confusing after some time.

Thank you.

Answermeplease11 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Answermeplease11[reply]