User talk:Ivi104

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CatcherStorm was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Villa Maria (telenovela) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CatcherStorm talk 14:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Ivi104, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CatcherStorm talk 14:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fuortu was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs several independent reliable sources to meet notability standards of Wikipedia

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Villa Maria (telenovela) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fuortu (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I started Tal Fishman's wiki page as he has over 2 million subscribers and I believe he ought to have one. I do not understand the problem. I am just bringing this suggestion so it may be fulfilled. If there is a problem I suggest Wikipedia makes a page for him. Thanks. Luciethedoll (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review the article (unless it was automatic) but I did create the page. The tag that was placed on it has since been removed by another editor. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Abbottonian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Countdown (Victorious song), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Abbottonian (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its a real moment in the islamic world and Iran especially, but most of the links are in Persian. How to resolve this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansingh47 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ur guidance

can u give me some example or reference to insert Persian links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansingh47 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivi104! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 18:55, Wednesday, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Simon Baron-Cohen, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the article states (based on source link(s)) that the subject is an "activist" apart from his work as a researcher and clinician? If there is no such statement with link, the reversion should be removed.24.11.116.253 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] An activist is legally defined as someone who seeks to create a positive change.[1] Let me ask you something: why do you think a person like him would get into developmental psychopathology, and, later on, to autism research? I believe the obvious answer is - to make a positive change. This is what (almost) everybody strives for in their lives - to make a positive change, to be remembered for their contributions. Speaking of contributions, this is what you and I are doing, while editing WP, isn't it? Trying to make a positive change. If, for some reason you find this insufficient, please take a moment to read the last paragraph under section Autism research:

Baron-Cohen developed the Mindreading software for special education,(...) His lab developed The Transporters, an animation series designed to teach children with autism to recognise and understand emotions.

Having developed software and an animation series to help autistic children, one might argue he was aiming to make a change for the better in their lives, which is what activism is all about. Best regards, Ivi104 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Macleod, Mr. Andrew. "What is an activist?". www.activistrights.org.au. Retrieved 2016-12-20.

The Wiktionary.org definition of activist ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/activist ) is somewhat different in that it expects political activity and campaigning for change; two activities which are unique to social or political activism, not commercial or research activism. Still, if you review a few of the WP "Category:Autism activists" articles, you should see that many such activists do so in a variety of ways. However, very few of these activists intend to profit from their actions as Baron-Cohen does from his. Now, I admire Baron-Cohen very much, but there is a remarkable difference between his form of activism emphasized by your description and the form of activism of other, less commercially minded autism activists. I use this comparison merely to show that, for the sake of an accurate WP article, a difference must be recognized somewhere between activist and non-activist. I believe that the vast majority of autism activists do their activism to convince others about the disorder and its social effects by lobbying public officials, news media, large organizations and corporations, colleges and universities, and churches, among many other groups, not customers or other like-minded researchers. If such a difference lies within your definition of activist, then, by all means, make the appropriate changes to the article in question. You will have no complaint from me. I wanted only to make the article as accurate as I could do so.24.11.116.253 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to avoid blindly following dictionaries (wiktionaries), shall we? Instead, let me talk you through my views. Activists are "divided" according to their fields of interest (for lack of a better word). As such, we have religious activists, political activists, environmental activists, etc. They don't all need to be involved with politics, and many of them aren't, but all of them are activists. If some of them do not take the "standard" approach to activism, but instead focus their efforts on researching it in order to better the life of those their work is focused on, I see no reason to accuse them of having hidden commercial intentions. There are other ways to earn money, why build such an elaborate career focusing on a single issue - autism - if one's only goal is to profit? It's true he didn't act on all the mainstream channels, but I'm sure all the children his work has helped are equally thankful to him, as they are to all the mainstream activists. Ivi104 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, when you state that "If some of them [...] focus their efforts on researching it in order to better the life of those their work is focused on...," you are essentially supporting the merger of the WP "Category:Autism researchers" into the WP "Category:Autism activists," aren't you? Where do we separate the wheat from the chaff within each category in the hope that the categories, indeed all WP categories, aren't corrupted beyond all recognition because of myriad personal interpretations of categories? Several articles are categorized within both categories because there is evidence that their subjects have, in fact, acted in ways that follow the definitions of each category. But, the vast majority of the 253 individual subjects among the categories don't share the two categories. Most articles about researchers are limited to research evidence, and most articles about activists are limited to activism. There are maybe 15 or 20 articles which straddle both categories because they include enough relevant facts that they clearly deserve to be so. Should we simply combine all 253 articles into one or another category despite the chaos that would ensue among the WP admins? Of course, not; categories need strict guidelines to prevent abuse and conflation. Beyond all this debate, I note that the Simon Baron-Cohen article's categorization within both categories remains unchanged. Why, then, are we even discussing this? I have no intention of reverting your edit; not because I believe it is accurate (I still believe that it is inaccurate without additional evidence of strict activism), but because I can appreciate that there are some "shared" reasons which might make categorization within both categories valid. My only concern moving forward is that other articles might see misfeasant categorization based on interpretation and opinion, too. Regardless, I hope that our agreement that the Baron-Cohen article may remain within the two categories is enough to end our conversation for now.24.11.116.253 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Ivi104 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17482 was submitted on Feb 07, 2017 16:39:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivi104. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Villa Maria".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 12:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivi104. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivi104. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ivi104, I'm working on some routine cleanup and see you have not made use of the ip block exemption flag on your account for over a year. This will be removed in about a week, unless you reply below that you still have a need for this flag. This will have no impact on your ability to read Wikipedia. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. As your account has been inactive for a year and there was no reply above, this flag has been removed. This will have no impact on general editing, however if you are trying to edit from certain blocked IP addresses you may need to move to another address or request a new exemption. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ivi104,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivi104,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

HI Ivi104,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ivi104! I know you think of yourself as neutral point of reference as admin in Croatian Wikipedia that never makes mistakes and everyone else needs to follow, but here it is a bit more sophisticated here as there is stronger sense of balance of big community. So stating that you bring neutral point of view in article on Tram 11, but than list only the rightwing opnions and highlight the super marginal and accidental parliamentarian Marko Milanović Litre (context: he is former secretary and now substitute parliamentarian, due to a legal loophole, with just 19 votes won), marking him also as relevant for English Wikipedia?! This is not neutral. I hope admins here take notice. --Zblace (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblace: Wikipedia NPOV policy clearly states the importance of accounting for all significant viewpoints on any topic. In accordance with that policy, I have included the view of the Croatian political opposition. I understand their views are not accepted by everyone, but they need to be included for the article to be truly neutral. Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy. Ivi104 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivi104 the view of Croatian political opposition!? This is too funny in plain sight for all informed.

You explicitly singled out one person and made red link to the person that is actually an accidental parliamentarian (with very limited support even in its own part of right wing spectrum) and is desparate for visibility...you call that accounting for all significant viewpoints? I will no argue with you over more as this is lost cause, but just want to point out to other editors in English Wikipedia, what kind of bias is present here. --Zblace (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblace: Two sides were presented, in accordance with the policy, backlash and contract cancelation by Menart, and support from the political opposition. The quote from Litre was given as an example of the opposing side. I do not agree with them, but as an editor I am bound by policy to present the topic as it is. Ivi104 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt you can read what I try to communicate @Ivi104, but here it is break downt to most basic points as you fail to identify what significant viewpoints are:

1. you can not distinguish object and subject (Menart is not one of the sides here, especially not on political spectrum)
2. you think only in binary - not multiple viewpoints as a part of spectrum in extremes where 'two sides' are not just binary
3. you illustrate and highlight person who has little significance even in right-wing populist party he is a part of and then do not present other positions within that spectrum and let alone across to other side.

Hope this was clear enough and you will stop sending writting this way. --Zblace (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked at the site you recommended. But I don't really understand how it works, for example how do I figure out which parameter creates the error on the pages in this category? --GryffindorD (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GryffindorD: The template is used on many pages (1069), so you need to increase the limits (I didn't want to overtax the API). Try this link: [1]. You will then see a section that says :"Some articles use parameters that are not present in the template". All the articles in the category use an unknown parameter dimensione that should be replaced with logo dimensione. Ivi104 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]