User talk:Masharabinovich

Welcome!

Hello, Masharabinovich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like 29A, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 29A

The article 29A has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable number

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Masharabinovich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

88.86.125.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: East718 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Editing Wikipedia from anonymous proxies is not allowed, sorry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address was blocked indefinitely on 22:19, 6 August 2008 as a proxy. You have successfully edited since then. Are you on a shared IP or just changed your ISP? If shared IP then maybe try to reboot your connection to get a new IP address. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to use a proxy in order to edit, because my ISP's (fiber.cz) network is blocked as proxy.

The blocked range 88.86.96.0/19 is not an anonymous proxy. It is network of 8192 IP addresses. And there are a lot of subnetworks owned by different providers inside the range.

You give me no another possibility as to find an anonymous proxy each time I want to edit, because I am not allowed to edit without the proxy, using my ISP's IP.

Fair use rationale for File:Felix 01.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Felix 01.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)..[reply]

Archiving

Your archiving efforts are too aggressive - you're pretty much pointing all links to the archive rather than just the dead ones. I suggest you stop your actions and tweak how you're going about doing it. Fixing dead links good; fixing all links bad. Tabercil (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But as soon as link is dead (or has the content changed) there is almost no time to replace it with the archived one, because it will be quickly removed from the wiki as being dead. That's why we have both "url" and "archiveurl" in Template:Cite web. If you will have a look at French and Russian wiki, almost all external links have "archiveurl" filled. There is only one difference - "url" is shown first and it does not look like replacing original links with the archived ones but as adding extra link shown after the original and in smaller font. So the user can follow "archivedurl" in case if "url" is down or lost its content. Perhaps we have to change Template:Cite web the same way in order to make "archivedurl" smaller and after the primary url. Masharabinovich (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a tweak for that :) I made changes in one page using the tweak and will stop waiting if anybody will argue against it. Masharabinovich (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got way fewer problems with what you did with the Mila Kunis article the 2nd time around, what with the "deadurl" setting used (which I didn't know about myself...). How are you going about making those changes - is it a script at your end?? Tabercil (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a simple script. I am thinking on converting it to a bot somehow (perhaps two bots, one for archiving and another for checking link status and set deadlink=no or deadlink=yes properly, see reply to Lexein below) because I see people interested in changes like these. Masharabinovich (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with archiving all known flaky sources, and less aggressively archiving known-stable sources (whitelist?). Ultimately, however, all convenience links will rot - it's only a matter of time. San Jose Mercury News. Rolling Stone. See Wikipedia talk:Link rot#All_links_eventually_go_bad and my response to User talk:Lexein#Linkrot. I don't agree with changing {{cite web}} - people can click on "the original" if they want. --Lexein (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite web}} is already changed this way, I mislooked it. There is deadurl parameter indicating whether the archived link is rot yet (deadurl=yes) or not (deadurl=no). In latter case the original url will be shown before archived (exactly what I wanted to have after changing {{cite web}}), in the first case the archived link will be shown before (the default behavior). some bot should change deadurl=no to deadurl=yes when the link became rot and the other way around if the link is back to live. Monitoring urls' live status seems orthogonal to archiving and these two tasks may not be synchronous with each other. "Archiving bot" can put deadurl=no when it adds archiveurl to the existing {{cite web}} (one time change), then "live check bot" updates deadurl according to url availability (many changes, each month or so) Masharabinovich (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot account

Dear Masharabinovich. It was noted that RotlinkBot (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing as you are doing. That looks like you are operating an unauthorised bot (see WP:BOT). Also, I am not sure if the brute force mass insertion (as discussed in the above thread) is the way forward). Maybe first the link should be discussed, and whether it is necessary, and then whether a bot should pick up the task. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is no bot yet. I am investigating this topic, both technically (by looking how many of already dead links are available on archives) and by collecting the opinions. One day it may develop in a creation of some kind of bot. --Masharabinovich (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the archiving work happening

I see you're discovering that backupurl.com has failed, at about the same time people started to rely on it. You probably understand why some of us are cautious about relying on another newcomer, archive.is. If I can request the following priority of placement in {{cite}} archiveurl= parameters:

archive.org - If it has captured a page, then it's nearly guaranteed to persist. Downside: 1. If domain owner adds a robots.txt exclusion, this blocks viewing old archive.org captures. 2. Takes 3-12 months to present archived pages. AP and UPI licensed content expires faster than that. 3. Has ugly trouble with Javascript, CSS, and images. 4. Paradoxical capture behavior: some popular pages are never archived, some insignificant pages are archived almost daily.
webcitation.org - stable and well funded. Has trouble with Javascript and some CSS. Won't archive if excluded by robots.txt, but seems not to block old archives due to a new robots.txt.
archive.is - new kid on the block. Very high fidelity page captures, includes screenshots. Downside: reclusive owner ;) , unknown funding.

What I have always wanted is more redundancy: I use WebCite and archive.is with new sources, now that it has a bookmarklet. But the "gold standard" is archive.org, in spite of its problems. --Lexein (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Masharabinovich. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]