Jump to content

User talk:Ivanvector

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.210.155.96 (talk) at 18:23, 9 May 2017 (→‎Thanks for resolving the earlier ire: Minor edit, ignore.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:DailyBracketBot


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Block

Hello, you have blocked Sher E Punjab - Maharaja Ranjit Singh. However, the page has been created as Sher-e-Punjab: Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Is it still banned? If the ban has lifted, please redirect the banned title to this link. Thanks. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: thanks for your note. In terms of being recreated, I think the page is okay. In my opinion the creator of the new page is not obviously a sockpuppet, and that was the reason for the page having been deleted before. I will remove protection from Sher E Punjab - Maharaja Ranjit Singh so that you can create a redirect if you would like. If you need help please let me know. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... on second thought, I've requested another check. It's suspicious. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one favorite person?

I'm about to step out in RL, but was wondering ... does Nicktoonspl15 look like a sock of Fangs to you? It's making my sock radar go haywire it's so off the charts. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: that's an impressive level of coincidence, yes. I pulled together an SPI and endorsed for a CU check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...Unrelated. Didn't expect that at all. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) They could've just bought a new machine and moved house, eh. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it with this master. It's a head-scratcher, anyway. Bbb23 closed it pretty quickly, I think we should take that as a sign we're way off the mark here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd redirects, look redundant to me

Sorry, gotta run--[1]. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'd say some of them are silly, but only maybe a handful are possibly problematic. I'll RfD some. My general view on redirects is that clutter is irrelevant: if a user genuinely feels that a redirect will be useful then that's good enough, so long as there aren't other problems with it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You know I came here via Neelix. :) Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know....

....if you have seen this. Regards,--Maragm (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at these edits/IP?

Can you take a look at these edits and advise what can be done? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: we don't normally block IP addresses for long periods because they get reused by unrelated editors, but this IP had already been blocked for this so I re-blocked for 1 week. Thanks for your report, but you may want to report at WP:AIV next time for a faster response, your note landed here overnight for me. You can also request page protection at WP:RFPP which will prevent all new and anonymous users from editing the page, but I don't think the current level of disruption warrants it at the moment. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciate you taking a look. Hmlarson (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer me to the place where...

...the matter of disruptive editing (to which you refer) has been discussed, leading you your blocking a particular IP address. I always identify myself, and there is no question of sockpuppeting. Hence, it is unclear on what policies or basis that this decision has been taken (and with what administrative authority). Please see my user page for who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your user page. --NeilN talk to me 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had this at the top of this section. It was moved twice. --NeilN talk to me 05:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These edits, now appearing in the order in which the edits were made, includes the second, a reply from someone other than Ivanvector, and is incomprehensible. What was moved from my User page? And why was this section, at Ivanvector's Talk page, the individual who issued the block in question (and so is the involved party, of whom clarification was requested) removed by you, NeilN? If you are not neutral and objective in matters pertaining to me, please, as an administrator, with advanced rights and responsibilities—recuse if you cannot act fairmindedly. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: Look at where you posted originally. Jeez. --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your succinctness communicates nothing clearly. My first communication, on the matter at hand (the block of an IP address, experienced today), was at 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC). That is, my original post on this IP block was today, here. And it was addressed to the individual making the block. What is your surpassing interest in the matter? Order of edits returned to chronological, for clarity of understanding of followup editors. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... --NeilN talk to me 05:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If administrators are to perform their services in support of the encyclopedia, and of editors, you are doing neither. Please recuse yourself, if you cannot participate in a fair-minded way. From start (deletion of this Talk session) to finish ("sigh"), you have contributed nothing to the clarity of this matter, or to understanding. I will ask other admins to look in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...the matter of disruptive editing (to which you, @Ivanvector: refer) has been discussed, leading you your blocking a particular IP address. I always identify myself, and there is no question of sockpuppeting. Hence, it is unclear on what policies or basis that this decision has been taken (and with what administrative authority). Please see my user page for who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272 Please read WP:NOBAN. You edited Ivanvector's userpage. This is normally frowned upon. NeilN transferred the section to the proper place (Ivanvector's user *talk* page). As for the IP block, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Leprof 7272 and tag bombing. Ivanvector did a nice job explaining it all on your own talk. In a nutshell, you've ignored the multiple warnings you've received not to edit logged in and out on the same page. As a result, your IP has been blocked to prevent this. What else is there to explain? Sro23 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23:I now understand, based on your description, what I did wrong at Ivanvector's User page, and it was inadvertent. (I know not to edit other individual's User pages.) Thank you for clarifying this, in one message. I never would have gotten this from NeilN's "Moved from your user page.", because of the ambiguity of the "your", and my perceiving that he was communicating to me. (I had thought this Talk page was, in the first place, where I had placed this inquiry.) Thank you for taking the time and words to sort this with me. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: I have just found and finished replying to the Noticeboard matter. I will not have time for several days to catch up with my User Talk. A link to my reply to the matter follows. We can consider this discussion closed here; I simply was unaware of the whole situation, NeilN declined to point me to the Noticeboard despite repeated queries for clarification, and so I searched it out otherwise. (I did not see it at my User Talk page, and will not, because I strictly limit the time I spend there, because of longstanding clear evidence that it is the single venue wherein most time is wasted, subtracting from time that could be spent creating or improving content. I will look to that section, during the week of 6 May, likely on Tue-Wed when I am home and caught up.) Here is the link to my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: @NeilN: My ignorance is lifted, see preceding message this thread, so there is no need for any further response. See the link to my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your preceding message displays a lot of self-justification and not a lot of understanding of the matter. I'm still not sure you understand you posted to Ivanvector's user page or what my edit summary of "I copied your post to the TALK page" means. --NeilN talk to me 09:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: See my thanks above, to Sro23, for making clear my inadvertant initial posting to Ivanvector's actual User page. I've re-read all your entries, here and at your Talk page, and still, in retrospect, could not have gotten from you, the clarity that Sro23 managed. In particular, your first greeting-free message (no name of whom you were addressing) was adjacent mine, but intended to address Ivanvector. Given that juxtaposition, your use of "your" led me to read your message as addressing me (i.e., "your" as "Le Prof's"). Hence your statement did not initially, and continued not to make any sense to me. This reading and interpretation—my seeing your post as a statement to me—should also make clear why I kept moving it chronologically after mine... Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I placed my message above yours, and not as a reply, as you insisted on changing to twice. Having "Moved from your user page" as the first post in a section makes it pretty clear who the post is addressed to. And please stop changing your "preceding message". --NeilN talk to me 09:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: I changed my 08:56 message, because I wrote it before I understood Sro23's meaning, and to have left it would have simply been confusing to Ivanvector and Sro23 and the thread in general. (No other deviousness or maliciousness, whatever you might think.) Again, I have acknowledged and given clear basis for the misunderstanding between us. Can you not acknowledge that you played a part, both initially, and thereafter in declining to try to understand, and alleviate, my confusion? You are an administrator, after all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: "I copied your post to the TALK page" seems pretty clear. These misunderstandings seem to form a pattern of behavior on your part. --NeilN talk to me 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leprof 7272, how did you not know that comments go on user talk pages instead of user pages after being here for, what, three years? Anyway, if you wish to appeal the topic ban, write a concise appeal and place it at AN. Writing longwinded text walls elsewhere is the wrong move. We're all volunteers here and our time is precious. Condensing your thoughts is just plain polite. El_C 09:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: If you read what I wrote above, at 09:10 (deeply indented), you will see I have addressed the matter of posting on the User page, and your incredulity is misplaced. Otherwise, I have no desire or intention of appealing the topic ban. And as for your Wall of Text argument, a defense is always as long as the accusations, and mine is no longer. You are likely unschooled in law, and about arguments that typically take place in the process of accusation and rebuttal, but it is untoward to suggest that an accused not be given the chance to fully respond to charges leveled. I did no more, or no less, and it is not of great concern to me that people here are inclined to be unwilling to read a page of reasoning and argument. Otherwise, I just say, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is my "incredulity" misplaced? You've been here for three years, and suddenly, you make that mistake(?), and even revert it(!). I, in fact, did read it in full and found it unnecessarily longwinded and, frankly, self-gratifying. El_C 10:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You choose to impugn motive, and believe the worst, based on presuppositions about what passing time spent here means. So be it. There is nothing to be argued, and I cannot reply to insults in kind. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: The foregoing was all so much misunderstanding, which, as far as I am concerned can be collapsed of deleted. But do see my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. And note, that any editing that I have done, of late, prior to my entres above, were done in ignorance of the Noticeboard action. As I say above, I simple spend almost zero time at my Talk page. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272, can you not see the utter absurdity of placing endless and repeated posts on other people's talkpages, while completely ignoring the posts you receive on your own talk page? A very large part of Wikipedia participation involves abiding by community standards and heeding talkpage notices. When, over a period of three years, you repeatedly disregard notices on your talk page about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and norms, you end up with sanctions. If you then still fail to read and comprehend the messages on your own talk page, especially those posted by administrators, you begin to fall afoul of Wikipedia's WP:CIR and WP:DE guidelines, and risk being blocked from editing for an indefinite length of time. A word to the wise there: Learn to cooperate and abide by Wikipedia's norms and guidelines, or your stay here may be involuntarily truncated. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no absurdity whatsoever, in reaching out to people in the manner they are best reached. Every professional has annotations on their client/colleague vcards which say "never email" or "best by Slack" or "text before calling". That I can recognise others that use their WP Talk as a regular social venue, and are there daily, while not doing so myself—though this has led, operationally, to my having missed the opening and closing of the ANI, it is clearly not an irrational construct. Otherwise, I renew, at your Talk page, the invitation to explain your ire. Not your studied concern, or your principled objections to the mistakes I have made—some of which I admit to—but your anger/ire. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enaya Afzal

Recent block; see also User:Enaya Afzal Siddiqui? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not know if both accounts had been blocked as I could not see anything on the TP or userpage for the secondary (which is also not colour-compliant). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem. Fixed. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case status

Hi. Please use "hold" rather than "onhold". Apparently, the template recognizes "onhold", even though it doesn't list it as a possible parameter, but the bot that does the case overview does not. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I saw the "unkown" in the list and started thinking about how to fix that but then OMIGOD A SQUIRREL Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soon-to-be closed SPI case

Hi Ivanvector- just seeking clarification. Should I have opened a separate case here? I wasn't intentionally trying to link Vjm to the StylesClash case, but I noticed some weird connections (as detailed in the section "Unrelated SPI case?"), so I sought input from users familiar w/ Vjm at my talk page before submitting evidence. Another user encouraged me to reopen the StylesClash case rather than opening a new one. Levdr1lp / talk 14:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally if you're adding an investigation to an already-opened case, then you're asking to investigate a user's connection to an already-confirmed sockpuppeteer, StylesClash18 in this case. The basis of your request appears to be that all of the listed editors edit disruptively in WWE-related articles, which is true, and given that one of them is a previously-confirmed sockpuppeteer your request was well-founded. However none of us have access to Checkuser technical data, and when those findings were included the evidence pointed to a different result. You could have started a new case with Vhmljds as the master and SethAdam99 plus the IPs as alleged sockpuppets, but I think we would have ended up at the same outcome, and wouldn't have identified CerebralAssassin16 as a StylesClash18 sock. So no, you didn't do anything wrong here. If you do observe any other editing which suggests Vhmljds editing through alternate accounts in violation of their block, I would suggest opening a new case under Vhmljds' name and referring to this one as background, and a clerk may merge the reports if something comes up. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Levdr1lp / talk 04:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving the earlier ire

...at my Talk page. I have real work and real professional responsibilities. I am responding to this as fast as I can. Please, keep Jytdog off my page, and have others respect the "in use" banner until I can make it thorugh all that others have said. You all have had days on this. It is all news to me, as of discovering the IP block. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also here. I presume I have the freedom to delete his insult at my Talk page. Jytdog routinely deletes user additions, as have most others I know, and so I have done so in the past. If not, revert it please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: yes, those remarks are clearly inappropriate and I've warned the user. The usual accepted approach to removing personal attacks is to replace the entire offending comment (excepting the user's signature) with {{rpa}}, which produces the text (Personal attack removed). I've replied to your question regarding the permanency of the ban below where you asked, and I'll respect your request to leave the page alone for a bit. I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two stray points. My lack of ability to conclude you were an admin led to some confusion about who was doing what with the ban/block. If there is a way to make this more front and center on your User page—one of the little boxes that discloses such, or a simple statement near the top—in retrospect, it would have helped. Second, if there is a way in which an email can be sent to you, please call that to my attention. I am near end, at the extent to which I can discuss matters here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "topicon" on my page which indicates that I am an administrator, but you're right that I could make this more clear. I'll consider expediting this. You can email me by clicking on the "email this user" link in the menu to the left. Note that you have to have your own email enabled for this to work. See Special:Preferences if you haven't. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please touch on the "last warning" language on my Talk page, when you have a chance. I am still clueless as to what prompted it, and cannot for the life of me reconstruct a reasonable explanation from time stamps. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Please have a look in at my Talk page. I am extremely busy with work, and have not had time to respond to the long arguments already made. And, despite the "in use", people continue to add further content. In its static form, I can hardly hope to be able to reply; if the target keeps moving, I cannot possibly reply, and will just give up entirely. (I will reply at their Talk page, to the one administrator who seems to wish to express something, so that they do not take offense.)
And I am still at a loss about the "last warning" language, coming from you, an admin. I have reviewed it within the timeline, and it appears that while I was composing a long reply to the existing material, you and others were continuing to add material. This had two consequences: (i) my working offline on the response made it appear I was ignoring you, and (ii) the continuing edits made the response I was preparing into one long, impossible-to-resolve edit conflict, so I could not post it. (That prepared response, now unusable, is why I ask the material remain static until I can reply; I cannot possibly hit the target [people's points and contentions], if it continues to move.) I'd ask you to look back to the "final warning" language that was presented there, and see if it was indeed, not misunderstanding of the developing situation, rather than willful defiance, that was at issue. The tone of that language casts and unnecessary pall over that conversation, and I would rather it be removed or clarified, than remain. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leprof 7272, sorry to hear you're still having problems. I'll reply here out of respect for your desire to parse the discussions on your own page at your own pace. I can't guarantee that others will respect your request, unfortunately, and I am not aware of any policy that would enable an administrator to enforce your request if others choose to disregard it. If it helps, you might try drafting your response on some other page, like your sandbox, and copy it over to your talk in one go when you're ready. At least that way you ought not need to worry about edit conflicts, so long as you're careful not to ping anyone while drafting (linking to someone's username usually triggers a ping, and a notification for them to reply). Regarding my "final warning": as I recall it was in regard to your insistence on removing posts from your talk and forcing them onto other pages, which at the time I did interpret as wilful defiance of a commonly accepted conversation protocol which I felt you had been adequately advised of. You may consider that particular warning retracted, and I will edit your page in a moment to make note of this so that someone else does not act upon it inadvertently.
You've caught me on payroll day so I am quite busy and may not be able to respond further for some time, but let me know if I can be of any more help. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thank you kind Canadian sir, for the strike through, and for anything you can do to keep the Talk expanse contained. But I am not having any problems to speak of. The only matter here is if there is a way forward in my volunteering (at present there does not appear to be), and if not, how to gracefully exit. Rest from me will come via email, of a weekend. Check the edit history on this text; meanwhile, yours is the only response that I have scripted to call on me, if you engage. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm

While I advised them against it, I did explicitly give Slaterseven permission to undo my close. I don't know that it's worth un-re-un-closing at this rate, but it is a thing that happened. if i'm being honest, the jokes weren't even that good. i liked the edit summary though at least Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect that, but I think it should stay closed. Obviously nothing's going to come of this and both editors need to drop it and move on. Letting one of them re-open to get one more jab in is pretty much the opposite of that.
That being said, mocking someone after they've expressed insult is very clearly harassment, and if I saw it first then someone would be blocked right now. I was in the process of saying so when you originally closed, but this thread in particular needs to be shut down. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fair. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Not only Hijiri88 has reinserted deleted material added material after the ANI had been first closed (and after material you deems was " Parting shots" [2] but in addition it is untrue, but due to your closure of the ANI I am unable to respond. Here is my first attempt to add that I am dyslexic to my user page [3], here is my ANI launch [4], the next day. So can youi please remove this, and explain to Hijiri88 why.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This (by the way) was the comment I reopened the ANI to reply to, not Mjorpants last comment (and this was added after his last comment).Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: the comment by Hijiri88's IP was removed by another editor before I removed yours and Mjolnirpants' final unnecessary comments. I am sorry that you were insulted because of your disability and as I said in the section on this page above this one, had I seen it occurring Mjolnirpants would be sitting out a block right now, but this situation has resolved, and nothing will come of your insistence on drawing it out except that eventually your disruptive editing will bother the wrong administrator. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was just concerned that his re added comment was going to be actioned without me being able to defend myself. If this is not the case then I have no issue with the comment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was removed, and I have no interest in any further action here, but Writ Keeper did seem to be cautioning you explicitly that reopening the thread would expose you to such a result. Someone else has already archived the thread, so I think you needn't worry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Thomas

Hello Ivanvector, I just saw the news in the Spanish media on the death of Hugh Thomas, yesterday 6 May. I'm fixing the article in es.wiki and just added his death in this wiki. Maybe you can help edit the article since I don't know the template that goes on top of the page when someone died recently, plus I think the news could also be included on the cover page. Many thanks and regards, --Maragm (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maragm: hi there, thanks for your note. Our Hugh Thomas page is a disambiguation page which lists several people named Hugh Thomas, I'm not sure which it is you're referring to. I'm about to run out for a bit so I won't be able to check back in for some time, but the template is {{recent death}} and you can put it at the very top of the page. We advise against using it unless the article is currently under heavy editing load because the person has died, but you can add it and I'm sure someone else will just remove it if they don't think it's necessary. Ciao. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant this Hugh Thomas. --Maragm (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&oldid=779573040"