User talk:Drogonov

IFPI
Thanks for helping with the recent spate of edits to the IFPI page. Of course, according to Wikipedia policies, you're justified in completely removing the info about the current DDoS attacks until info appears in a reliable source, and I agree the sources cited so far are less than ideal. However, I was wondering if you would be supportive of allowing the paragraph to continue to exist as something like the following, which temporarily uses op-ed sources but makes clear the reports are unconfirmed:


 * On 19 April 2009, after the announcement of an unfavorable Swedish court decision against The Pirate Bay, the ifpi.org and ifpi.se domains were reportedly subjected to a DDoS attack. News & opinion blogs The Register and TorrentFreak, speculating, attributed the attacks to Pirate Bay supporters.

This is a strategy I've used before to deal with the kind of edits we're seeing. It satisfies these kids' need to see something about the event right now, yet is carefully phrased to make it clear all the info we have so far is essentially rumor & speculation, plausible as it may be. As long as we characterize them carefully and don't wrongly attribute any malfeasance to someone, I don't think there's any harm in mentioning the existence of the rumors. I expect that if it's a notable event, it'll get some more respectable press in the coming days. Either way, if the other incidents mentioned in the article are a guide, then after the attacks subside, the flurry of edits about it will, too, and visitors will be less inclined to challenge or revert stricter applications of the verifiability policy.

That said, I do want to continue to delete, on sight, any mention of possible connections to the forums 4chan or ebaumsworld; there are no news-y sources whatsoever for those allegations, and the kids trying to add that info can't even agree on it. I'm also not wanting to mention AnonNet, either (mentioned in the Reg source and repeated in TorrentFreak). —mjb (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
I have blanked the automated template I left on your page in error. I also tried to undo my revert of your edit to Mjb's talk and found you had already done so. Apologies for my mistake.  Tide  rolls  20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Late response to email
Hi Drogonov. I've only just seen the email you sent on 21 December - so sorry about that, I rarely check that particular account. Anyway, I've just emailed you a copy of the article text, sorry again for the delay. Happy New Year! Nancy talk  11:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sheep Vote
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Sheep Vote, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ham tech  person  19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)