User talk:Drubanov

Welcome!

Hello, Drubanov! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Mistbreeze (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Something odd happened after my account was banned.

First of all, I can't see any of my edits on the user page. They didn't all relate to the article which caused a ban. I made a number of edits to the "weak reference" page and I was able to see them before on my history page. I would like to be able to link to them from my page again.

Second of all, I have found something which I am sure must be a bug. After doing a search for myself on wikipedia as shown below:

I get the spewing bug page shown below:

Drubanov (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What page is that search you're trying? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to be able to find it anymore. I do believe it was a user search page because I was trying to find a history of my own edits. One of two things has happened (or both of them):

I am taken to a different user search page now that the block has expired for X number of hours (for some unknown-to-me value of X).
The page was rolled back. The user search page shows up as a '.php' CGI search. As you can see from the spew, it used to go through some Python page (and from the names of the directories it looks experimental). While I do understand that the Python invocation could have been some mid-tier, that doesn't square too well with the Python exception showing up on the page itself. Also the fact the color scheme of the search page is different now (a white form vs a gray form during the spew-inducing period) is another indication that something was rolled back to make it work again. Oh, and I looked through all my browser history for the past 3 days filtered by "wikipedia" and found no pages which would result in the grey search form.

I don't really need to know if it's the 2nd one -- as long as you rolled it back and it works now, that's your business. But if it's the 1st one and it may happen again, or if there are still some lingering effects, maybe you should alert developers. You can probably find out who was doing the experimenting from the spew. I can't even find the entry form anymore. But you should have no problems finding it by looking through your commit history for snippets of the text on that form.

Drubanov (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that you may be using the tool incorrectly, as opposed to there being a bug. If you want to see a list of the edits you've made with this account, you can find that pretty easily at Special:Contributions/Drubanov (see Special:Contributions for a general search box). Your screenshot is probably this tool, which is intended to search for contributions to a specific page, not provide a list of all your edits. I was able to reproduce that kind of "spew" for any Wikipedia account by leaving the "Page" field blank and using an asterisk (*) in the "database" field instead of enwiki. Please try using Special:Contributions/Drubanov for what you want to do, and if you want to find edits to a specific page, fill in the "Page" field with the page title and the "Database" field with enwiki. Mz7 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

First of all, thank you Mz7 for finding out the page which produced the Python spew. But, to the point, whenever a form on a site results in an exception in the script which handles submission of the form, and the details of that exception are presented to the end user, that's a bug. The filling out of the form on the page https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py in the way which I showed in my 1st capture above resulted in the spew which I demonstrated in the 2nd capture. So that is a bug. And developers should know about it. As of this writing, in response to the same inputs, this spew still happens. I just checked. Drubanov (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This error is not an administrator matter. You can report it to the developer of the script, User:Σ. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holding Head of the President of the United

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-879.html

Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon-- a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President; a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect; a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. As used in this section-- the term “immediate family” means-- with respect to subsection (a) (1) of this section, the wife of a former President during his lifetime, the widow of a former President until her death or remarriage, and minor children of a former President until they reach sixteen years of age; and with respect to subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, a person to whom the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, or major candidate for the office of President or Vice President-- is related by blood, marriage, or adoption; or stands in loco parentis; the term “major candidate for the office of President or Vice President” means a candidate referred to in subsection (a)(7) of section 3056 of this title; and the terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” have the meanings given those terms in section 871(b) of this title Easeltine (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I don't know why the previous comment (the one quoting the law relevant to Kathy Griffin's actions) was put on my talk page. There was no stated purpose to it, was there? I am earnestly trying to understand the reason for it. Was it to provoke a response? If it was to make public the context of her actions, wouldn't Kathy Griffin's Wikipedia page itself be more appropriate for it? I honestly don't see how to discern comments from posts here. Drubanov (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question, but it's one only Easeltine can answer. That law quote certainly does not belong into the article on Griffin, though - that would be original synthesis. Huon (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your latest edits on Kathy Griffin is vandalism. If you do it again you could be blocked.BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have made good-faith attempts at making Kathy Griffin's page more accurately reflect her career. While she has mostly performed in comedic venues, she has never (to my knowledge) made any attempts to be funny. In fact, her performance style is more consistent with the classification I assigned to her genre. She attempts to infuse comedy with melodrama. My edits were not defacing as much as they were nuancing of her style. Drubanov (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia does not care what you think her genre might be, and removing the category of Grammy she was nominated for and which she won can hardly be considered a good-faith attempt to provide accurate, unbiased information about Griffin. Huon (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I agree that removing of reference to Grammy category was probably taking too wide a stride. I made an attempt to simply remove references to her being comedian while retaining accurate descriptions of all entities associated with her. Her genre is relevant here. In fact, one of the edits was to her listed genre of performance. Clearly, if I am entitled to an assumption of good faith, then you must believe that while removing all references to her being a comedian, I made a few changes which were too broad and changed descriptions not only of Kathy Griffin (the subject of the article), but also of some of the entities associated with her. But making changes which were accidentally too sweeping, while inaccurate, is not defacing. It's just an inaccuracy due to lapse of judgement. And since her genre is infusing comedy with melodrama, rather than attempting to be funny, removing references to her being a "comedian", or references to her performances as "comedy", does, in fact, improve the accuracy of Kathy Griffin's description. Drubanov (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits are pointy and verge on trolling. As you have not provided any assurance that you would not continue to make the same disruptive edits should you be unblocked, I'm declining your appeal. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Shouldn't my long membership history and lack of penchant for trolling or vandalism be an assurance in itself? I didn't feel the need to provide any further assurances. In fact, the thought of doing so didn't even occur to me. I can certainly tell you that defacement wasn't my intent. As for the charge that my edits were pointy, I would strongly argue that the charge of vandalism itself seems much more pointy than anything that I have done. I accidently made the edits less narrow than I should have made them. The moderators' response was to use a cudgel of blocking and rolling back all (even the relevant) edits. Isn't using procedure as a cudgel, instead of using it as a scalpel to narrowly tailor the edits, something that is the very gist of pointy actions? Drubanov (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any grounds for unblocking here. You were behaving badly, you were warned, you persisted, you were briefly blocked. The charge of vandalism was not disruptive, thus not WP:POINTy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I regret having to make a 4th unblock request, but I don't see any way of addressing the fact that the previous response was factually wrong. I wasn't "warned". The first communication with me did not occur until after many hours had passed since my last edit of the Kathy Griffin page. I was behaving less than ideally, but that was a far cry from "behaving badly". And since I made no edits to that page after the 1st indication was given to me that my conduct was not acceptable, I certainly did not "persist". In fact, the block followed shortly after 1st warning and I found out about both of them at the same time. The penultimate moderator response claimed that I made no assurances that I would cease ill-received behavior, but, as I already pointed out, history of my behavior should, in itself, act as an assurance. Actions speak louder than words. Drubanov (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. The block has expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.