User talk:Ivanvector

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)

Information regarding sockpuppets

Over the past few days, I have noticed a concerning trend in the South Asian military history articles on Wikipedia. A significant number of articles that are of relatively low importance are being rapidly created and then promptly deleted. What is particularly noteworthy is the speed at which these articles are appearing and disappearing. The root cause that I have identified behind this issue is the persistent "vandalism" of existing articles by certain users. I have compiled a list of names that should be closely monitored and considered for inclusion on a list of frequent vandals.How can I go for the block of the vandals or what steps should I follow to apply for their block? (1)[1]
(2)[2]- A confirmed sockpuppet of User-[3]Check confirmation points below
(3)[4]
(4)[5]
(5)[6]

Proofs:- (1)Rawn3012 being sockpuppet of Mohammad Umar Ali:- [7] 1)[8] 2)[9] 3)[10] 4)[11] 5)[12] (2)Supporting Based Kashmiri(sock/meatpuppet) : 1)[13] 2)[14] 3)[15] (3)User Editing articles together with BHUPENDRA JOGI:- 1)[16] 2)[17]-----> edited by bhupendra jogi and Mohammad Umar Ali 3)[18] (4)BHUPENDRA JOGI edited Mewar Malwa conflicts:- 1)[19] 2)Warned for his distruptive edits-(especially on Rajput pages, Similiar to Rawn3012:-[20] (5)Editing Articles in a vandalising manner:-[21] Same article Created By User Mohammed Umar Ali (2)Engaged in Edit Warring: 1)[22] (6)Rawn3012 Supporting Ratnahastin and Based Kashmiri: 1)[23] (7)Links of Ratnahastin and Padfoot2008: [24] (8)Involvement of user padfoot2008:- ->Continuously editing the some articles in the similiar way the user based kashmiri did and supporting Rawn3012,Based.Kashmiri and Mohammad Umar Ali.[25] ->Destroying some articles and supporting another articles without WP:NPOV !!! [26] [27] Roberthooke003 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The above user is probably a sockpuppet, see this [28], Thanks. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit

My talkpage ping may not have worked so dropping you this note about a discussion I started on the article talkpage that parallels your previous edit summary advise. No immediate admin action is needed but some extra eyes would be good. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; you're right, your ping didn't work. I'm busy for the next few days but will try to have a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)