User talk:Salvidrim!/Q1 2016 Archive

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Salvidrim!!

Happy New Year!

Salvidrim!,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hm.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_science_fiction_short_stories&action=history DS (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know. I saw. I'm still trying to think if an AfD (based on gadfium's WP:TNT suggestion) is worth my time. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

population

Plz check the numbers..est 5000pop? Even in the pru 13 that is above 21 of agethe number of voters reach to 13k+/-..so est 17k pop is a resonable by 2016..2nd ly..suppose u should talk first before delete my post..and promotion??? Come on ..all the tmn mchap bestari sold 100percent..just an info lah.. Wanbart2020 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please a source, a reference, for the latest population total. And the paragraph you added was unreferenced and read like a tourism brochure advertisement. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Machap Baru

Hi Im Wan,

From Melaka & have setle down at Machap,

Ive have change a few (update) things as the numbers of population, numbers of voters won by YB Lai and add for new housing that is Taman Machap Bestari. We are proud to have new development in the area. Becoz the article : "which serve 'exotic game, such as wild boar, deer, monitor lizards and snakes. The restaurants are often under constant monitoring by the Malaysian Wildlife and National Parks Department for involvement in illegal trading of endangered species.[1]" where got now days this kind of things.

You are welcome to visit machap baru to see 4 your self either we have or not this kind of thing here & plz check the number of voter for Machap poll during the recent election so that u have the proper and reasonable number measure.

Thanks

http://resultpru13.spr.gov.my/module/keputusan/paparan/5_KeputusanDUN.php?kod=13508

JUMLAH PEMILIH BERDAFTAR : 11,682 (above 21 years old) election for year 2013 JUMLAH KERTAS UNDI DITOLAK : 208 JUMLAH KERTAS UNDI DALAM PETI UNDI : 10,123 JUMLAH KERTAS UNDI DIKELUARKAN : 10,141 JUMLAH KERTAS UNDI TIDAK DIKEMBALIKAN : 18 PERATUS PENGUNDIAN : 86.80% MAJORITI : 152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanbart2020 (talk • contribs)

• Hi Wan. I've added your source above to reference the estimated population count. I've also removed the paragraph you had again added, which was unreferenced and read like a tourism brochure advertisement. The portion about illegal trading cannot be removed because it is well-referenced to a media article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2015, the project has:

• 199 Featured Articles
• 71 Featured Lists
• 10 Featured Topics

• 28 Featured Pictures
• 969 Good Articles
• 18 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements
• WP:VG Talk Page Digest

• Feature: Gender Declaration and the WP:VG Gender Gap
• Interview: Czar

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A weird draft page

I don't know what to say about this draft page but I'm not fully positive what is real and what isn't here. Draft:Mike Firemunks. GamerPro64 04:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• You've clearly never delved into the abyss that is "fanon" pages. Wikia is shockingly full of them but sometimes they bleed into Wikipedia proper. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That explains a lot. Well I archived the draft so even if it gets deleted, the legacy can live on. GamerPro64 05:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Moved it to userspace because I couldn't find a reason to delete it, and because I'd rather not have to be the one to deal with this user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't blame ya. I very much dislike some of the rules made involving drafts. Can't delete a draft under G13 unless it was an Articles for Creation candidate and hasn't been touched in six months, for example. There are plenty of articles that have been around for that long but have to be taken to MfD instead. I feel like something should change in that department. GamerPro64 05:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion

Hello Salvidrim,

Regarding your useful remark you made today at Bbb23's page; I proposed Richwales to either evaluate the evidence himself, or if hes not able to do the former, at least not to archive/close the page, for no single moderator has had commented on the loads of provided evidence. However, then I just realized that Richwales is barely ever active, which probably may result in further issues regarding this raised up issue. Another clerk thats not aware of this issue might just go ahead and close it as he/she is not aware of whats going on, if you get what I mean. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Some help

Is there anyway someone else can represent me in AN/ANI where i don't have to say a word. I said it before, AN/ANI is my Achilles' heel. It is a completely different area than Wikipedia. And i can't stand to be there. But unfortunately AN/ANI is the very gateway to editing where i need to edit and feel comfortable. Even after members openly admitted what they intended to do with the ban, no one was convinced.

I'm not perfect....i dont think i will ever be able to prove whatever they want me to prove in AN/ANI. I had proof before and it wasn't enough. And i'm sure now those who are looking at my edits now will continue to think i'm not ready to edit where i would like just by making this thread. But i'm at the end of my rope. So i ask, is there any way someone else can represent me in AN/ANI? The only time they seem to care about a response is if its from someone else (which unfortunately, although the responses grow by each passing time, they just aren't loud enough for WP:AN/ANI).

i feel like some of the more shady comments get swept under the rug while my comments are being put under a microscope (but never my contributions both in the community and in article-space). Lucia Black (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, what do you want "someone else to represent you at AN" about? What is it you seek? If it's a lowering of your ban, you're probably better off not asking about it right away, so soon after the latest (avorted) discussion. Maybe 3-4 months of good editing in other topics and it'll be easy for me or Serge to convince the community to cut you a little slack. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • That's 3-4 months of working on things that i don't enjoy. I literally find no joy in Wikipedia at this moment. And taking along break (what should've been indefinite) wasn't enough for them either. In order to move anywhere, i have to edit...and i have to continue to edit...regardless if i enjoy it or not. Is it just me Salvidrim? Is it just me that i think the system needs to be worked, and i'm the "perfect" example of the AN/ANI system gone wrong? Or i do i truly deserve this and more? Lucia Black (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sense of this mess. I'm barely making edits. So I just want to know. I would like a straight honest answer. Lucia Black (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The main thing requested from most opposers in the aborted AN appeal was to have seen you edit constructively, for some period of time, typically 3+ months. From my viewpoint, several did not even care if it was enwiki, simply that it could be attributed to you. With that in mind, I'd like to offer the suggestion that you consider editing on the Simple English project. Your topic ban does not apply there. The expectations for how content is written is different, but it can be clearly attributed to you (Due to global user) and be used in support of your next appeal.

Whether AN/ANI is broken or not, it's the system we have to work with on enwiki. It's unlikely to change anytime soon. In my view that leaves you with the choices of either going to ArbCom (I don't recommend, not because I have a problem with ArbCom, but because if it backfires on you, you'll REALLY have no recourse), editing here on enwiki on other topics (for 3+ months, then appealing), or editing on a sister project (Like Simple English) within your favored topics. (for 3+ months, then appealing). -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Last time, it didn't work out so well. Again, need i remind others what happened last time i attempted to work on Avatar: The Last Airbender (and a template at that) and it wasn't even anime/manga. But because it was "inspired" by it, it could be deemed as such. And Ferret, i want to change WP:AN/ANI. The system is so heavily deigned to be popularity contest. I am the first ever to ave a "construed" consensus for a Topic-Ban, in which some have openly admitted they tried to use as a community ban. Lucia Black (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have any involvement concerning your edits with Avatar, so can't comment there. I'm not suggesting you edit anything on enwiki that could be remotely construed as under the topic ban. And like I said, your topic ban doesn't apply at all on Simple English. If you really just want to be able to edit your favored topics, I've tried to suggest several ways you can go about working towards a topic ban appeal. If your real goal is some sort of change to AN (and from there, some sort of "reversal" of your topic ban), good luck, but I do not think you'll get what you want. Just take a glance at the RfCs concerning RfA and trying to get that changed, which has been on going for .. well... forever. -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And I believe that response best represents the reason why you're not having any success at ANI. You refuse to acknowledge any wrong-doing of your own, instead blaming ANI and other editors. I'm not trying to argue you or bring you down or anything, I'm saying it to help. Editors at ANI basically look to see if people have "learned from their mistakes", and when you respond to every comment, and say things about how you were wronged, people get the impression that you still haven't learned anything, and they don't support you. Think of it this way: Let's say you were thrown in jail for a crime you didn't commit. You get sentenced to 5 years, but get a parole hearing to get out after 4. At that hearing, you wouldnt argue about a corrupt judge, or the jerk cop who arrested you wrongfully, or stuff like that. No, you'd focus on your good behavior since, your plan for staying out of trouble, etc. if you were intent on fixing that legal system, you'd make sure you're all the while out of jail, right? Same type of thing here. When you go to ANI in the future, you'll need to focus strictly on how you've moved on, done good things, and no comments related to how you disagreed with the topic ban, ANI, etc. If you want to change ANI, you need to wait until you're out from some of your sanctions to be taken seriously.

Anyways, just my two cents. I mean no ill will or offense intended. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you do when people openly admit they abuse the system? Lucia Black (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You've got a "legitimate" path to recover from your topic ban (Which you don't seem to want to do), or you can instead try to fight against the perceived unfairness of the system. Since you have a partial topic ban concerning the system (No posting to AN and it's sub-boards), it's going to be difficult to fight it. People will perceive that you're just trying to wiggle out of your topic ban(s), whether it's true or not. Things aren't always fair, and you'll have to decide whether editing is more important to you than being "right". If you want to fight the system, you're going to first have to "rejoin" the system. -- ferret (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm stuck between two worlds when it comes to WP:AN/ANI. i didn't want to fight what WP:AN/ANI was, i just wanted to come back and make good edits. But i'm at the end of my rope. As much as everyone tries to not-sympathize or even empathize, i'm not enjoying Wikipedia.

I have a strong group of people who also don't believe this is should've happened. I feel like disrespecting them just as much as myself ignoring that side of the argument. My mind gets torn apart in Wikipedia. Its not easy being in my position. Throw me a fricken bone here and try to see where i'm coming from. If AN/ANI needs reform, then why fight to reform it?If we can make things better, whats stopping it? Our perception on editors? Lucia Black (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record: I'm currently working on Glover (video game), Diddy Kong Racing, and i'm trying my best with Millennium (series). I"m trying to make it work. But i'm reaching dead end after dead end. Lucia Black (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on AN/ANI needing reform, as I don't participate in either heavily. I simply don't feel you'll get any traction on reform, until AFTER you've successfully appealed your topic bans. The fact that you choose to keep viewing this as a "me versus them" is a big part of the problem that you'll need to move past. Just keep editing as you have been. You're improving articles, it doesn't matter if some can't go beyond a C class. In another 2-3 months, try again on the appeal, with a sponsor like Salvidrim or Sergecross backing it (and opening it). I'll gladly support it at that time, especially if you do any of the suggestions I've repeatedly put forth. (But especially Simple English, because once the topic ban is lifted, you should be able to move some of yours edits/content back to enwiki.)

But otherwise, I think I have little more I can say on the subject. I hope you continue to edit and eventually succeed in appealing your topic ban(s). -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I want a guarantee that if i edit in simple english Wikipedia, nothing will happen. Like i said, last time i attempted something like this, it didn't work out. It wsn't even japanese related. Lucia Black (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The best I can offer is Wikipedia:Banning policy#Scope and reciprocity, which states "The English-language Wikipedia does not have authority over the Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia sister projects, or Wikipedias in languages other than English. As such, bans issued by the English Wikipedia community or Arbitration Committee are not binding on other projects." Simple English is a sister project, it is separate from English Wikipedia. (I'd also like to note that this applies to EVERYTHING about Simple English. Even things like WP:N / WP:V may not be exactly the same over there, so you might want to read up first. Simple English policies are completely separate from enwiki)

Perhaps one of the admins reading can offer a conclusive statement. -- ferret (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

All it takes is consensus. That's all they really need. They don't need reason, they don't need policy. All they need is a vote. So again, i need a real "guarantee". If it can't be guaranteed, then its better to reform Wikipedia. When you said you probably don't know if AN/ANI needs to be reformed isn't because you don't participate in AN/ANI, its because you never received the other end of the stick when it comes to it. Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim! and @Sergecross73 can you offer a view? I'm fairly confident that enwiki topic bans do not carry weight on simplewiki, and all of it's policies (including adminship) are separate. -- ferret (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. Undoing a topic ban is up to a discussion, so it's impossible for anyone to make any sort of guarantee conceptually, and no one is going to take any suggestions for ANI reform seriously from someone who is topic banned from ANI and upset about other bans - it's going to sound like sour grapes. Possible avenues have been given. Lucia needs to take it or leave it. (And yes, I think simple wiki operates completely separately from en-wiki, though I'm no expert.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

i do agree that undoing (and doing) a topic-ban needs to be up to a discussion. But i do believe discussions needs to be more systematic and less room for opinions not-related to policies or guidelines. And making clear guidelines of what people should ban and unban for. Primarily "why" these bans exist in the first place. And lately the standard policy people have tend to forget "why" we have these type of bans in the first place.

I also noticed that Wikipedia "creates it's own monsters" and i'll explain on that. Its no secret WP:AN is a popularity contest on saving your skin, but what people don't know its also a place to mudsling and a free-pass to throw away the rules to treat other editors wrong, and make other. Editors that dedicate the time to be in WP:AN can be toxic. And i'm not the only one who thinks that. Users such as Ched and PresN have stated this to me before.

Why don't you help me make a solid proposal to reform the very place where rules don't apply and add some strong rules? Lucia Black (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that AN/ANI can be a toxic environment, but sadly, I don't believe its a problem with its set up, but rather, how foolish people act on the internet with anonymity. Its not like its a problem specific to AN, or even Wikipedia. A few minutes on places like Twitter or Youtube's comment sections will usually find all sorts of harsh, angry, ridiculous people. I don't think its the type of thing reform would help, let alone the fact that, as I've already said, I don't think the timing is right for you to pursue this, and as Ferret mentioned, reforming Wikipedia's major aspects, can takes years (like RFA reform) and even then still stall.

I'm willing to help with article/content ideas like I've been doing, and I can try to stay out of the AN/ANI discussions so you don't get the wrong idea that I'm out to get you, but I personally don't believe that AN/ANI is the problem here... Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont know...i feel like poeple see the problem, but they don't want to make AN/ANI accept responsibility. the ironic part is that outside of WP:AN/ANI, Wikipedia expects AN/ANI to accept responsibility for things that happen outside it. Lucia Black (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

unprofessional

I don't know what is wrong with all of you. in a normal situation. Everyone would've dropped it. I'm not being disruptive. All I did was mention a policy. Edit probation isn't an excuse to ban people from specific things just because you don't like a comment.a I pointed out WP:notforum.

Its unprofessional regardless whoever thought it was a good idea unprofessional. Lucia Black (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• you know it's not even the act of banning me. But removing my comment, and even hiding it because you don't like what I'm saying. And essentially covering your own opinion of me over it...if you won't unban me from it fine. But your comment and how you made mine out to be is significantly worst. Any editor would be outraged. Lucia Black (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Your whole comment was unnecessary though. 1) You already made your feelings clear on it. 2) The discussion was clearly wrapping up and about to naturally end. This is exactly the reason why trouble follows you wherever you go. Its not because of some sort of conspiracy of people out to get you, or a broken ANI system. Its because you struggle so much in your interpersonal communications between editors. The way you interact with others, upsets them. Until you finally become aware of this and address fixing it, I don't see how this is ever going to change... Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I mention a very basic policy and i get condemned for it (while being publicly insulted). And the reason why i didn't ignore it because it was clear that editors wanted to use it as a gateway for more Forum-like discussions. Doesn't matter that i repeated myself. i doesn't matter that it was unnecessary. the whole idea of defending something against policy was even more unnecessary. And it sure wasn't going to be the end. like i said, it was a gateway for more, editors have admitted to it.

Look, i deal with a lot of things. More than the average editor needs to deal with. You're lucky, the only thing you need to consider an issue is "me". As oppose to Niemti, and other editors who pushed their weight around and no one wanted to do anything beause his edits outweighted his behavior (at the time). i have to deal with people passive aggressively ignoring valid points and relying on just voting, making my comment feel like utter nonsense. I have to deal with editors snubbing my comments, and trying to systematically gain consensus because they want to ignore certain aspects that hurts their argument. I have to deal with real people, insulting me and making me up to be a monster, making it harder to stay calm in Wikipedia. And lastly, i have to now deal with Administrators who ban me, with a side of public humiliation.

Like i said before, Wikipedia has the ability to create its own monsters. You're lucky, i'm not going out there making Pointy edits, or so. I dont believe this is a conspiracy. A conspiracy suggests its done in the shadows or in secret. i dont think its a secret. I Alphonse believe that people openly do not like me, and regardless of what i say, what i do. I will never get the chance to show where i shine, because i have to edit in a place where i have to deal with all of the aforementioned issues.

No disrespect to you personally, or professionaly. thats just how i feel. And i know at some level, you see where i'm coming from. Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This incident has gotten to e far more personal than you all realize. And it has not been easy transitioning back into Wikipedia. I'm not kidding. Its to the point of being suicidal. If you want to follow WP:Suicide, then be my guest. Because honestly, this has really gotten to me. I cant think straight. The entire time since has given me anxiety and depression, and no matter what I do, even if it's the right thing, people will treat you like the monster they claim. So that's it. Lucia Black (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Freefall 3050 A.D.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30 Vu Digital

Hi. Thanks for closing the DRV for Vu Digital at WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30. Your suggestion, "or by providing attribution (such as an edit summary "merged out from Vu Digital, attribution to contributors can be found in its history", regardless of whether said history is visible to non-admins or admins only)", is incompatible with WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline) and is not listed as an alternative at WP:Merge and delete (essay). Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The current arrangement should be satisfying to you. Cunard, I've gone ahead and already created the redirect you wanted and left the list of all the contributors on the talk page of said redirect. Linking to the talk page (and/or my specific diff) is sufficient to satisfy WP:PATT. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• As I noted at the DRV, when asked, five of the nine AfD participants were supportive of my proposal to restore the article's history under the redirect to facilitate a merge. A sixth AfD participant wrote: "Do what you want". Two-thirds of the AfD participants supported my proposal. This significantly weakens the arguments in the AfD saying that restoring the article's history would override the AfD participants' wishes. Since restoring the article's history under the redirect would comply with a majority of the AfD participants' wishes and there was no consensus against it, I do not understand why the article's history cannot be restored under the redirect.

  If you decline the request, I would like to have the full history of the article, including all past revisions, available to facilitate a merge since the last version may not contain all the available content for a merge. Please undelete Vu Digital and move it to Talk:C Spire Wireless/Vu Digital. This procedure is standard for cut-and-paste moves and can be used here to make the history available. From here: "If it is inappropriate to leave the second copy in the main article space, you can archive the duplicate page to Talk: space (i.e. by moving it to some suitable title, such as Talk:RandomArticle/OldVersion)." I do not want it in my userspace because it eventually would violate WP:UP#COPIES.

  Cunard (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability says, "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. ... Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

  Your ignoring of my query about your administrator action for now 12 days is demoralizing.

  Cunard (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't sass me about accountability. I haven't forgotten this thread. I've been monitoring the ongoing RfC and will act in accordance to the consensus that emerges from it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect has been closed. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that it took me so long to actually get to this issue, and thank you Cunard for your patience. Accordingly, I've restored the history under Vu Digital (and protected it to deter reverting to a previous non-redirect version contrary to AfD consensus). However I don't see the need to have it moved to Talk:C Spire Wireless/Vu Digital. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• No worries. Thank you for restoring the article's history under the redirect. I have merged material from Vu Digital to C Spire Wireless. I agree that there is no need to move the article's history to Talk:C Spire Wireless/Vu Digital. I support the full protection and thank you for closing the DRV and reviewing the RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Gantlet vs Rajeshbieee

Hi Salvidrim, I'm a little skeptical of the Gantlet vs Rajeshbiee/Rajeshbieee sockpuppetry thing. I've commented at Rajeshbieee's talk page, but basically they have virtually no significant intersections and their areas of interest seem disparate. Gantlet's favorite article is Kochi, Rajeshbieee's favorite article is Mithun Chakraborty filmography. Rajeshbiee's favorite article was Shankar (actor), but with Mithun Chakraborty filmography in #2. Gantlet has 645 edits to his name. Rajeshbieee has 19,000. I'm having trouble understanding what behavioral evidence led to CU being run in the first place circa 2010. Most of what Rajeshbieee has said seems to track. His Rajeshbiee account was blocked in 2010, the Rajeshbieee account was created six months later. The only think I'd say he was clearly "guilty" of was not asking for the Rajeshbiee account to be unblocked, but that seems so trivial. Gantlet also asserts that Rajeshbieee tends to edit Tamil film articles, where Gantlet seems centered on Hindi and Malayalam. That seems easy enough to verify, and considering they have only two intersections, it seems likely that he's telling the truth. Anyhow, just some random unsolicited thoughts. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Any discussion of this must involve Bbb23 who ran the 2015 CU check which turned out  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) and was mentioned as gray-ish (another CU might've confirmed or called it likely) and explicitly recommended (based on non-evidentiary instinct, but with which I agree) blocking the two accounts as socks of each other. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79 you might have missed this, where I replied. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Bbb23 has stated that he's not entirely opposed to an unblock with a few codas, namely that the editor has to have a mentor and follow the requests on the unblock section. My question to you is this: do you still think that he's a likely sock and if not, do you believe that he should be unblocked? I'm kind of halfsies on this. The sockpuppet connection is still an issue and I do trust Cyphoid's judgement, but I'd like to hear an "all clear" from you on this front just so that if issues do come up in the future, we can say that he was cleared. The biggest issue, however, is the mass creation of articles with absolutely ridiculous sourcing and the fact that despite having been here for five years, they had zero concept of any of the guidelines. This was a huge concern because this means that they either can't or won't understand policy, as most users with his amount of edits learn policy by this time, at least enough to know that you can't use eBay as a source. I'm just not entirely convinced that he'll change if he's unblocked and unfortunately, there's a history of extreme leniency on people with a large amount of edits. (IE, I've seen people make edits that we'd block a newbie for and get brought to ANI on multiple occasions, yet they're allowed to stay on because they've made a lot of edits or articles.) If we unblock him and he doesn't correct his actions, it's going to be very difficult to block him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The sockpuppetry issue wasn't the most cut-and-dry case, and I'd be willing to AGF and assume we were wrong, if that's what you're asking. However, and while I'm a believer in rehabilism, I hold doubts that this editor will remain unblocked for long. I will say that the quality of his edits and behaviour (sockpuppetry or not) weighed significantly in my decision to follow mine and Bbb23's instinct and blocked the accounts. If the user was otherwise constructive I might have erred on the side of allowing for the benefit of doubt when it came to close the SPI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yeah... his article creation and general edits were definitely a problem. If I knew that we could have a very good, very strict editor looking over his edits, I'd feel more confident about any unblock. I know that Titodutta had been looking over him, but he wants a different, uninvolved editor to mentor him, which is fair - someone with a new, fresh outlook would probably be best since it'd give him a legitimate second chance if the user is unblocked. I'm tagging him here since he'd asked in the past to be tagged in Rajeshbee related threads. I think that I'd feel more confident if we had someone confirmed to mentor him. My request is that it would be someone who is strict, since I think he's going to need a very firm hand with things. He's had about five years and several editors helping him, so I don't think that he'd change if the person who helps him is overly soft, especially as he's been warned that returning to old behaviors would lead to a reblock. He needs to know that this is serious and I'll admit, I'm not entirely sure if he can change, if he's been here this long, had at least one very good editor helping him, and he was still making extremely bad sourcing and editing choices. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Rajeshbiee

Hi! I was wondering if you could give your input on the unblock situation at User talk:Rajeshbieee. He's been seeking an unblock for a while now and one of the major reasons to decline it was the sockpuppet allegations. There have been two editors that have vouched that he isn't a sock or at the very least, looks unlikely to be a sock (Titodutta and Cyphoidbomb). There's still quite a bit of concern over the poor state of the articles he created, but the editor is aware that if he's unblocked he's going to be restricted to creating articles at AfC for at least a year (or longer - it's mainly until he can prove that he can make proper articles) and that he will have to clean up the articles he created, of which there are many. He's also going to need to find a mentor to watch over him.

What I'm mainly looking for is your OK to unblock him since you were the one who blocked him at SPI. I trust both Titodutta and Cyphoid's judgement, but I don't want to step on your toes here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to clarify my position on this a bit. While looking at the Gantlet and Rajeshbiee/Rajeshbieee accounts, I didn't see anything glaring that would link the two editors. Rajeshbiee's story seemed to be consistent--he'd gotten erroneously blocked as Rajeshbiee, then waited six months and opened Rajeshbieee so he could continue editing. His big "crime" in that case would be that he should have requested an unblock on his first account, but this, superficially, seems like a case where we could be the good guys and ignore all rules on this, especially if one of our colleagues made a mistake a few years ago during the CU. However, if Salvidrim has a better understanding/interpretation of the CU results/explanations, then that should be taken into consideration too. (Maybe the guys were roommates or something? Maybe the IPs used were very commonly used by professional editing rings? I don't know, because I don't have that data.) Summarizing, if there's a chance we were wrong or that the information we have is confusing, incomplete or inconclusive, we should unblock--a true sock will wind up getting nailed again sooner or later. If we are confident that we are right, then we should not unblock. Dat's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've already said above I was fine with AGF'ing the sockpuppetry doubts away but that despite my belief in rehabilism I don't see much potential in an unblock. If someone's willing to mentor, then I won't oppose an unblock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have asked them a set of questions: User_talk:Rajeshbieee#A_set_of_questions_for_you --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OTRS checkup

Hey Salv. I'm wondering if you can do a checkup to see if some photos are currently pending at OTRS. They're all from Serellan, an article I'm planning on making, and its video games. I'm not sure if the developer submitted them in right so I wanna make sure its there first. GamerPro64 01:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of files pending review in the permissions queues at any given time. I can search for tickets but can't access the queue directly. I tried searching "Serellan" and "Christian Allen" to no avail. To find it, I'll need to look with an e-mail address, filename, or something more specific. You can e-mail me the private details. FWIW, tracking tickets is one of the reasons that when I negotiated licensing of some files, I requested to be added in CC. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent the developer another email to see if they sent it to the right address. I think they only sent it to me. If they say that they did or that they sent it to the right email, I'll update ya. GamerPro64 01:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Re

Update. He just sent it to them and forwarded me the ticket email. We're all good now. GamerPro64 01:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So I also requested a picture of the developer, Christian Allen. Along with the company's logo and gameplay screenshots of their games Takedown: Red Sabre and Epsilon, can you check to see what their ticket numbers are? GamerPro64 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016012610001203 for Mr. Allen, and ticket:2016012610001043 for Sarellan. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the Serellan ticket for all the images expect Mr. Allen? GamerPro64 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You should be okay to upload now with "OTRS pending" tags with the ticket number. *shhhh* Lemme know if you have any questions! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Salv. I uploaded them onto Commons now and I will use them once the tickets check out. GamerPro64 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• GamerPro64 maybe that's just me, but I'd crop the logo picture more tightly... it's kinda lost in the middle of an ocean of whitespace, no? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixing ping. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryulong

If I may, not every editor has wiki-email or any kinda email. It's quite possible, that he has no way of contacting Arbcom, except through his user talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Ryulong has e-mail. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

But, we don't know if that email is still functioning, or do we? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We do, and it is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, GoodDay is correct that some people don't use e-mail, such as himself. However, I confirm that Ryulong does have e-mail and so GoodDay's good-faith concern is not an issue in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someday, it will be standard operating procedure, to restore talkpage privillages to any banned editor'ss page, after 1-year :) GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryulong has contacted me (and others) in so many ways and via so many venues other than Wikipedia that I find the very idea that he may be somehow powerless to appeal due to his talk page access being disabled, quite frankly, laughable. Apologies to GoodDay if I appeared unduly stern in my replies. That being said, when responding to UTRS appeals, I often err in favor of a simple restoration of talk page access to allow the appeal to be processed publicly by an independent admin instead of responding through the obscurity of UTRS. So I understand your point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict; @GoodDay:) But there sometimes are specific reasons not to do so, such as where the former user continues to misbehave after the ban (not applicable here), or where the former user is the subject of harassment. Let's drop this issue for the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, to clarify, unlock the talkpages after 1-year of those banned editors, who behaved during their banning. PS: Like me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No probs, Salvidrim :) GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

immediate Endorsement request

I would like you to immediately endorse my SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RutabagaAngel. CLCStudent (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I responded there. In the future, if you need a quick response from an admin, please report ongoing vandalism sprees after warnings at WP:AIV, request page protection at WP:RFPP, or report more complex abuse at WP:AN/I. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I mistakenly thought that the reporter was supposed to place the user page templates. CLCStudent (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a huuuge deal, I know you're just trying to help. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yo

Me again. (LPC) I trust you have ignored my emails, which is plain rude. I'm asking you for help. Not for you to carry me child. Please. Block FactStraight. He/she is petulant. You'll be able to see several of my edits on this IP address and every single one of them is useful AND logical. BUT that fool reverts them like a child of 12. Int makes my blood boil. Alas. HELP ME. Fgs. LPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.42.189 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form: http://goo.gl/forms/ZyYQm6uu7e. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Jkatz (WMF), I've had to forcibly disable the external link in your message to archive it because the goo.gl domain is blacklisted. Maybe this could be something to watch out for in the future! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Boogie2988

Hi Salvidrim, i just wanted to know why my article was deleted, I had references. If what I was doing against Wikipedia policy, sorry. If it can be put back up, thank you, but if not, never mind, i hope it does-MajesticEli

• Boogie2988 was deleted after a community discussion. Recreation attempts must now go through another community discussion, which you can start by following the instructions at our deletion review process. Note however that the article you created today has only references to a bunch of Twitter links and not "significant coverage in reliable sources" such as media article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate all your work on Wikipedia. I mostly see you on the project talk page, but always enjoy reading your constructive and helpful comments. I hope that a little star will brighten your day :) ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Salv

Hey, I didn't forget this time! I do have bad news though. Common practice had evolved with usurpations that prevents any usurpations where the target account has made non-vandalism content contributions. I'm afraid that I can't action the request for you :(.

On the bright side, if you just wanted the account to prevent impersonation, that shouldn't be a problem since the guy owns the sul and hasn't logged in for at least two years. Sorry, Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fuck, you can't be serious. This is stupid and you know it. I have actual use for the account (to avoid missing pings to my shorthand) and it's clearly never been an active account (a week of use years and years ago). The decision of WMF to base their forced rename decisions solely on account age was the actual mistake and we're just trying to solve the issue here together. From the very on-set, active users should have had the chance to claim the name from clearly unused accounts, and the other account should have been renamed to salv~nowikn, not mine to salv~enwiki. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz I don't disagree with the opinions on disallowing FUTURE usurpation requests, because post-globalisation they are not as necessary, but this is strictly to fix a pre-globalisation problem. If I had asked about it before the WMF's forced globalisation notifications went out (and I'm not prescient!) it would not have been an issue. Maybe this is the last unresolved pre-globalisation conflict (I wouldn't know) but it still need to be resolved. How can I get this approved? Who do I need to discuss it, at what venue, where can I, so to speak, "make my case"? Will I have to be elected Steward just to fucking do it myself!?!??! The only discussion I can find is m:Requests for comment/Usurpation policy/RFC, which is explictly not "consensus against" but rather "no consensus yet", and mine is probably a special case in that it is not a "new usurpation request" but an unresolved pre-globalisation conflict. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I generally agree that account names should be in the hands of people using them, rather than those who happened to make a few more edits years ago. It is also clear that the original user has no use for the account, with no edits since then, and he hasn't even logged in since SUL finalization. Do you plan on using the account for anything other than finding missed pings? If you were planning to edit primarily from it, then I'd be able to justify the usurpation. As it is, though, it would be hard for me to defend forcefully renaming a user with valid content edits, just so you could have a convenience account which you've lived without for a year already.

If you wanted a second opinion, you could start a request at m:SRUC. I would be more than happy to support your request there, but I don't think that it would be approved. I am sorry for saying that I could fill this a month ago as well; that was wrong, and I regret giving you a false impression. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz alright, how's this: I intend to actively use the account Salv as a legitimate alternate account for use on public or non-secure networks, as was recommended at the recent Security Review RfC -- in light of evolving concerns about account security across Wikimedia projects, I think it is never too late to improve your security procedures, and I intend to do so actively. Is this sufficient for you to justify the usurpation? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. That, combined with your initial attempts to stop the local renaming during SUL finalization, should be enough. I'll action this tonight when I'm back from work. Thanks for your flexibility with this request. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yea, the second I got the automated WMF message I messaged the staffer back but they were understandly too overloaded o be of much use guidance-wise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you encounter any issues logging into the account, etc. Thanks again for your patience... finally, the end to an ordeal that somehow lasted over a year! Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ☺ · Salv · ✉ 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Karen Greenlee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karen Greenlee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Greenlee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Karen Greenlee

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mega Z090‎ sockpuppet case

Thank you for your explanation with the close of this SPI. I appreciate the clear and logical rationale given, and I'm content to move on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)