User talk:Ivanvector

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



My first contribution blocked[edit]

I added quotes from Kristen Clarke, Head of the USDOJ Civil Rights Division, to her page. The quotes were double sourced. Why was my contribution blocked? UndergroundVeritas (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndergroundVeritas: was this you? If so, the quote was removed because we don't publish novel analysis, such as giving your personal opinion of a person's political views based only on something they said on Twitter. Content on Wikipedia is required to adhere to a neutral point of view, which is almost always incompatible with "setting the record straight". We cannot publish our own personal conclusions, we can only repeat conclusions made by independent reliable sources, and only in a way which reflects a balanced view of the subject. If you have such a source you could discuss including it on the article's talk page. If you were talking about something else, you'll have to be more specific. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP Address[edit]

Hello User:Ivanvector !!! Hope you will be Fine !!!

I Joined Wikipedia on 07 May 2024 and I'm able to edit Live Articles, draft articles, adding Images Tags but When i edit or add Image Captions, i got a warning that I'm blocked from editing or adding Images captions. Please fix this issue because I'm able to edit everything except adding Images captions. Please unblock my IP or any other issue. Thank you... SoryThank (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335. Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why decided to remove my comment?[edit]

Why you had decided to remove my comment instead of keep it as a warning or remove the entire post? user in question likely had done that post with the intention of posion the well and disrupt the discussion for his favor, his edit history seems to point to it as well Meganinja202 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are already plenty of warnings from multiple administrators on that page that personal attacks will not be tolerated. The tone of discussion on that talk page is already quite poor, and it's certainly not helped by comments like yours accusing other editors of having nefarious motives. Our policy is to assume good faith rather than immediately assuming that a question has bad intent, and if you don't have anything constructive to say in response then you are free to not say anything at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Working Man's Barnstar
To my fellow Canadian for your tireless and no doubt exhausting efforts to keep the Talk:Yasuke dumpster fire under control. I don't know how (or if) you're staying sane, but I know I definitely wouldn't be. Sock (tock talk) 14:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke edit[edit]

Hello Ivanvector, as a IP i am not able to talk on the talk-page, but i would like to bring to your attention some of the problems on your decision to ignore the sources situation in the article about Yasuke.... It should be mentioned, that the Huffington-article actual used quoted from Luís Fróis

in the quote: ＜巡察師（ヴァリニャーノのこと）が信長に送った黒人奴隷が、信長の死後、息子の家に行き、相当長い間、戦っていたところ、明智の家臣が近づいて「恐れることなくその刀を差し出せ」といったので、刀を渡した。家臣は、この黒人奴隷をどのように処分すべきか明智に尋ねたところ、「黒人奴隷は動物で何も知らず、また日本人でないため殺すのはやめて、インドのパードレ（司祭）の聖堂に置け」と言った＞

Yasuke is refereed only as a slave prior and after the death of Oda and he was only spared from death, because of his slave-status, comparing him to an animal by Mitsuhide. 「皮膚の色こそ異なるものの、若干言葉を解し、最後まで主人への忠誠を果たした従者を殺すのは忍びないと光秀が思ったとしても不思議ではない」 This part is already mentioned on the page, but it ignores the problem, that it is unlikely to happen, that Mitsuhide would have called a noble samurai retainer of Oda, known by him prior to the assimilation of Oda, just an animal.....he was not killed like a samurai, he was send back to his former owner, the missioner Fróis. Other samurais were killed by Mitsuhide in this incident and Yasuke was even violent in his capture.


In an earlier quote, he is not even the subject of talk and the quote is once again just highlighting, that Oda surrounded himself with black people, given by missionaries to him and he gave them various things. This includes a Tanto, not a katana and this was often misleading used to claim, that Yasuke would have owned swords, but it is just a dagger. Even women wore daggers, who were more specific named Kaiken and to quote the English article about this blade. The kaiken was also carried concealed in its shirasaya by the lower classes who were not permitted to wear swords, [...] Such a dagger is explicit to have a defensive weapon as a person, who was not allowed to carry a sword, like a warrior. Oda gave in this primary source a dagger to a black person, because he was not a samurai. And the whole quote is not mentioning Yasuke as the actual person, who got this dagger and other black people were mentioned to exist.


On a different paragraph it was once again highlighted, that the missionary gave these people as servants to Oda and the article itself calls explicit Yasuke a warrior 武士. Not a samurai. the differentiation is even highlighted once again here on Wikipedia. In Japanese, historical warriors are usually referred to as bushi (武士, [bɯ.ɕi]), meaning 'warrior', however, historical sources make it clear that bushi and samurai were distinct concepts, with the former referring to soldiers or warriors and the latter referring instead to a kind of hereditary nobility. with direct links to the famous Nippo Jisho written in the time, when Yasuke was present in Japan.

This was already highlighted on the talkpage to be the case and not followed by any critic against this argument on 15:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) by Hexenakte (At the end of the consolidation of threads discussing Yasuke's samurai description). Yasuke was certainly not part of the nobility of Japan and thereby was simply unable to be a samurai at these times and was at best only a warrior. The other source calling him only a servant and slave is still ignored on his page and should probably be added with this source, you deleated. https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2


Additional i want to add, that even the source 13, used to claim, that Yasuke is suppose to be a retainer of Oda still openly calls Yasuke a slave over the whole article, like そもそも奴隷だった弥助がデスマスクというものを知っていたのか？ (Did Yasuke, who was a slave, even know what a death mask was in the first place?) on the second page. Later the article even speculates, that he served once again under a different samurai. This wouldn't be possible, if he would be a samurai himself. In other parts of the source Yasuke is called a servant of Oda and not a retainer, so this source is simply used to claim, that there would be effidence, that he was a retainer, while the article is not directly stating this and makes arguments, who wouldn't allow him to be a retainer or just warrior in the first place. There are 2 sources (4 and 13) to prove, that he would be a retainer or samurai, but both articles are about entertainment movies, who present Yasuke in these shows as retainer or samurai. They don't talk about the historic figure in these paragraphs at the start and later they call him in historic content a slave.

I hope, you understand, that i had to inform you about these clearly problematic sources for specific-claims about Yasuke, who mixed fictional works with history in the article and the lack of honouring the clearly repeatedly historical claimed slave-status of Yasuke in the primary sources about him, who are partly already used in the article, but erased from his documented life in Japan. --2003:DF:A72F:9F00:B429:CF64:4762:BB8 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of my removal of the inappropriate disclaimer as "ignoring the sources" is incorrect. I removed that text only because it was inappropriate to have added it in that section, and neither of the sources provided seemed to support the conclusion. The article as it is now does not call Yasuke samurai other than in the context of fictional depictions where he was depicted as samurai, and Wikipedia articles are meant to present facts as they are, not to tell readers which facts are more important, nor how they should be interpreted, nor does Wikipedia take sides in controversial subjects. In short, writing in a note like "by the way, he wasn't samurai" is completely irrelevant in an article that doesn't call him samurai in the first place. It would be like adding a note at the top of Barack Obama saying "just so you know, he wasn't born in Kenya". You can see MOS:NOTETHAT for our style guide on these kinds of "leading" statements.
Besides this, I think it's important for you (and all editors involved in this) to understand that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Above you've made the common error of stating a few sources' conclusions correctly but then combining them into a new conclusion that none of the sources actually state. That is called synthesis and is a form of original research, which we cannot publish. In order to publish a conclusion like "Yasuke was not samurai because Oda gave him a dagger", we need a reference to a source which says that exactly, not two sources which say part of it.
Otherwise, the only opinion I've given on the samurai matter has been that the discussions should be in one place instead of spread across many different pages and threads. I am trying to keep to the role of neutral moderator, and so from my perspective there's nothing for me to do other than to monitor discussions, remove the occasional disruptive editor, and implement edit requests when consensus is formed on the talk page. You can participate in that discussion when the protection expires, but I am not interested in starting another discussion here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, than i am sorry about this characterization, because my intention were different and i believed the source would be deleated from the whole article, this was wrong, but i would like to highlight once again, that the original research part is already a huge thing over large areas of the article and this synthesis is gets ignored, while other synthesis contrary to this view will not get removed. We are there on the same page. If we cant write, that huge parts of his live made no sense, if he was a samurai, we cant make other claims on the site, that imply, that he would be a samurai, to make these claims work.
The Birth and early life and Documented life in Japan sections is filled with this problem to evade certain sources in articles, because it would mean to talk about Yasuke clearly sourced rank as a slave in Japan to allow to speculate about a potential higher rank of Yasuke in Japan, like the samurai-rank in other sections.
Both sections try to exclude the clear references of Yasuke as a slave even in quotes from the same Japanese articles used in our wikipedia article, explicit quoting the Jesuit missionary Luís Fróis, who is mentioned in the article and even quoted, but it is deliberated paragraphed to evade this term slave in quotes in his work.
The quote ＜信長も黒人奴隷を見ることを望んでいたため、宣教師のオルガンティノが連れていったところ、信長はその色が生まれつきで、後から塗ったものでないことを信じようとせず、帯から上の着物を脱がせた＞ von Fróis in the article is thereby ignored.
The quote 明智光秀の「黒人奴隷は動物で何も知らず」という説明は、あまりにも人種差別的だ。 is ignored.
The quote フロイスは「黒人奴隷は少し日本語が分かったので、信長は彼と話して飽きることがなかった。 is ignored.
the highlighted part calls him a black slave and these are only the quoted in one article found in a short search.
Additional i want to highlight once again, that source 3 and 4 and 18 is often used to prove in a manner of original research, that he would be a retainer ignoring these quotes, who call him a slave in the same article, because they put the article into google-translate and cherry-pick or by ignoring the context of the words in the article: The article, used the term 仕えた to describe him as a "retainer" for google translate, but 仕えた means in Japanese just serving (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/japanese-english/%E4%BB%95%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B) and would describe him as a servant. Not every common servant of Oda was his retainer. Only the samurai by their given rank were named retainers, while they served him.
In source 18 he is called 家臣, a vassal, who again would only be a retainer as a vassal, if Yasuke already possess this rank of samurai. Not every vassal was as a retainer.
The claim, that Oda made him a retainer by these sources, is not correct and already expects Yasuke to be a samurai to make these terms work in Japanese, while these articles wont call him a samurai. It is a synthesis, or not?
Would it be possible to at least copy and post these 2 problems onto the talk-page for me, as i am not able to contribute to the talk page, but my points are reasonable to ask for a consensus on these 2 matters onto the talk-page, that some terms in the article still imply, that he would be a samurai=> retainer, and that the article is clearly avoiding quotes of a major source of his live, who clearly define him over his whole documented life in Japan only as a slave multiple times in different articles used by Wikipedia already and often used by the writers of these articles too.
Before the protection expired, the talk-page should come to a form of conclusion on these vital parts. I don't want to create more drama directly after the protection expired, that would only lead to an expansion of the protection.
--2003:DF:A72F:9F00:41AB:29B5:56F0:5FF3 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for Elliot Rodger[edit]

Is there anyway to semi-protect the article like the 2014 Isla Vista Killings? The page is already getting vandalized and IPs are adding unsourced and unreliable information. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoot for the Stars: 2014 Isla Vista killings is already extended-confirmed protected, did you mean a different article? Protection is normally requested at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see in the edit history that some edits are already getting hidden. I’m just nervous that IPs and brand new accounts are going to add harmful or wrong information into the Elliot Rodger article. Do you think I should request it?
Shoot for the Stars (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you mean the article Elliot Rodger, I misread your question. I'm having a look now, but I think it's just the one editor (using several IPs) adding the unsourced/poorly-sourced content, so I would say it's not necessary at this time. I am watching the page, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you. I’ll also let you know if I find anything that violates the article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP @176.29.222.214: keeps removing sourced information from the article even after warnings. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoot for the Stars: thanks again. I don't think 2 edits warrants more than a warning just now, but I did clean up some other editors evading various blocks in the page history. Hopefully that will help. If you see more inappropriate IP editing on that article you should make a post at WP:RFPP, my availability is going to be poor for a week or two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of discussion[edit]

Thank you for closing the discussion. Can you tie it off on this notice board as you have done the close.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, although I marked the wrong discussion closed initially. Thanks for the reminder. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war 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 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An/I[edit]

According to a report filed at the administrators notice board you and I are having off wiki conversations as we are in cahoots to disrupt the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 page and I have you in my pocket as my patsy opening RfCs on my command.

Just thought I’d give you a heads up on the fiction involving you written by some that should be in the running for the Booker Prize. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think Yoyo360 is an extended confirmed user and may only be over the 500 edits as a result of editing on topics extended confirmed only are allowed. Can you advise on what the best action to take is. I ask as I saw you shut down the An/I as it was from a non EC user. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PicturePerfect666: there's an easy way to tell: the user rights log. Granting extendedconfirmed is normally done automatically as soon as an account meets the criteria, but admins also can set it (or unset it) manually. You must have forgotten that you tried to report this at ANI already, a few days ago (Special:Permalink/1225120528#User:Yoyo360 Ignoring of page restriction after warning by admin).
Regarding today's ANI, yes I closed it because it violates ARBECR, but I also think you should take the criticism seriously. SMcCandlish is right that RFCs aren't meant for rehashing matters where there is already a firm consensus, and it is considered disruptive to repeatedly ask the same questions hoping to get more favourable answers. RFCs can be useful to attract more uninvolved input in cases where editors can't come to an agreement, but on the Eurovision page it's pretty obvious to anyone seeing the page for the first time that consensus is against your point of view. You made a proposal and presented your arguments, but a good majority of editors don't agree with you (I'm interpreting your viewpoint) that criticism of Israel should be downplayed. And of course it shouldn't: we don't decide what information is important to include or not for any topic, we go by the weight given by reliable sources, and there was plenty of coverage of incidents with Israel and Palestine in this year's Eurovision. The only question for Wikipedia is how to present it, not if we should.
Participating in a large collaborative project like Wikipedia involves interacting with people from all around the world, and not all of them will agree with you all of the time. Being able to discuss in good faith, find a consensus where it does not line up with your personal views, and see editors who disagree with you as editors just like you trying to work towards consensus rather than as your opponents or enemies, are essential skills for Wikipedia; the alternatives are to burn out or end up blocked. I think that you will find good advice in the essays on tendentious editing, accepting when a discussion has run its course, and one titled "you can't argue Wikipedia into capitulation". You might even like one called "don't give a fuck", which I've pinned to my own user page for years.
Also, please don't copy anything that an administrator writes and reproduce it as your own words. Impersonating an administrator, including acting as though you have the authority of one, will get you blocked in an awful hurry. We also don't really have that much authority, just some extra buttons. I can't go around telling people or leaving hidden notes that things have to be my way or else, other than very limited situations where I'm permitted by policy or there's already widespread consensus. If I did, I'd get blocked, and so will you if you don't stop. Plenty of users have asked you to stop doing it, you should take their advice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if you believe placing the same restrictions you did on a section. I apologies for the oversight if i accidentally left anything pertaining to you in that. I believed I was doing the right thing as you had included the same restrictions in your RfC. I thought it was a mandatory requirement as you had also done so. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: I think that accusations of editors being "in cahoots" via email are rather silly. Not only is there no way to ever prove it, there's not really a rule against it. We have a "contact this editor via email" feature for a reason, and its use is (obviously) permissible. There's some not-really-defined line across which something like WP:MEAT and WP:GANG can be happening, i.e. conspiratorial behavior to skew WP's coverage of a particular subject, but this really isn't an actionable rule, since there's no way to prove it. It's more of a matter of community culture, a "how not to go about things" maxim. The actionable part really comes down to core content policy, and ultimately it doesn't much matter whether a PoV or OR or unverifiable claims are being injected by a lone wolf or by a tagteam. Behavior-wise, when it comes to the community imposing sanctions, it's going to be based on on-wiki behavior, not hypotheses about how two or more editors might communicate behind the scenes. Just saying this as a general "word to the wise"; it's not closely responsive to anything at issue at that particular article's talk page or the resultant AN/I, which I have not really pored over yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Closure[edit]

I just want to say that the implication that PicturePerfect666 created to say I think you are acting in bad faith is completely unfounded. I obviously do not think you are "in their pocket" or "in cahoots" or any other claims, as I said in the AN/I I think you have acted in fairly and in good faith, and I haven't seen an example otherwise.

All I am asking is that the concerns raised at the AN/I I have raised gets looked into. It is not about Israel or Palestine, if they were acting this way on the Woodworking article I would still be raising these concerns. I spent a long amount of time compiling a long list of their disruptive behaviour for this filing, including very specific diffs to outline each example, and it being dismissed based on my edit count is very demoralising. I read through the WP:ARBECR prior to filing and did not see any wording about AN/I being off-limits for this sort of discussion, as the filing was about their behaviour, not the actual Israel-Palestine conflict.

They are such as disruption that if both they and I got permablocked, I would still consider it a net-gain for Wikipedia. They will use the closure of that AN/I as permission to keep being disruptive, and they have already gone back to badgering in the talk pages. All I'm asking is that the contents of my AN/I filling is able to be considered. BugGhost🎤 15:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d drop the stick if I were you. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I am sorry normal discussion practices [as shown above] on issues on the content at hand, are disliked. I am sorry you seem to want me to not be involved in any discussions at all. That is not how Wikipedia operates. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BugGhost, I did write out some advice to PicturePerfect666 based on your complaints at ANI and what I've observed on the Eurovision talk page over the past couple days, but I was writing it while you were writing this (see above). I don't disagree with you, but I am hopeful that an assertive course-correction will be a better use of everyone's time here than doling out page restrictions and topic bans. They are options if the advice is not taken, though.
As for ARBECR, just to give you some insight into its history: the extended-confirmed user access level came about after an arbitration case relating to the 2014 Gaza war, which was already covered by arbitration sanctions applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the early days of Wikipedia. We had a very big problem of editors on both ideological sides of the war disrupting the topics and derailing discussions, and creating sockpuppets as fast as they could be blocked. At the time, if your account was blocked there was nothing technically preventing you from creating a new one, and after 4 days and 10 edits you could go right back to disruption. You'd get blocked again, but another 4 days later you'd be right back at it. So several editors suggested that we should bar editing pages within the broad topic to users with significantly more experience. If you needed 30 days and 500 edits, the idea was you needed to commit much more effort to create new sockpuppets for the topic, and most vandals would lose interest. And it has largely worked. I also argued at the time that the topics were so volatile that we should keep genuine new users away from them until they got more experience, because it got so bad that any new account that edited those topics was immediately accused of being a sockpuppet and then harassed off of Wikipedia. So it was partly for new users' protection as well: nobody wants to stick around a collaborative project where you're getting yelled at on day one for stuff that has nothing to do with you.
Regrettably, for a variety of reasons that I largely don't agree with, the original protective restriction has evolved into a prohibitive sanction that punishes genuine new users for no really good reason, in the form of ARBECR. We've always had a policy that page protection can be used to halt ongoing disruption but that we don't protect pages without a good reason, but somewhere along the way we decided that ARBECR can be applied for any page that's even remotely related to a short list of approved topics for no reason at all, which roughly is how we ended up with anti-new-user sanctions on a page about a fucking reality show, exactly the sort of article that attracts new users. It's a travesty, frankly. But I also feel that, once the sanction is in place, the only worse thing than it being enacted is it being enforced unevenly, and so I do my part as best I can, and as neutrally and fairly as I can. Of course I'm not perfect, just like everyone else.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the argument for having a bar to set to stop new accounts from editing important and sensitive articles, because it stops disruptive editors sockpuppetting (in some cases) - that part of the rule makes a lot of sense to me. What I'm struggling with is when there's proof of someone doing something very disruptive, that evidence can be ignored if the person who laid it out hasn't corrected enough spelling mistakes yet, even if the evidence itself is sound.
I'll drop the argument now (congrats PP666). Maybe I'll be back in 285 edits time with a even longer AN/I, but hopefully not. BugGhost🎤 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could the AN/I be reopened on my behalf? Because my complaints are similar and I technically now meet the requirements. Or I could just copy paste it all. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about reopening it, but from my perspective you can copy/paste/modify anything I wrote, no issues from me BugGhost🎤 23:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an assertive course-correction will be a better use of everyone's time here than doling out page restrictions and topic bans Yes, this is usually the case with regard to any well-meaning editor (versus a troll, vandal, spammer, or an activist or other inveterate PoV manipulator trying to abuse WP as a viewpoint-promotion platform). Ultimately, we need more not fewer good editors, and they are made, they develop; they're not born with a magical "great editor" gift. We can't, as a community, train people up into excellent encyclopedists if we hound them away for early mistakes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&oldid=1225532672"