Jump to content

User talk:Salvidrim!/Q3 2014 Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives

 2011 - Q3–Q4
 2012 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2013 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2014 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2015 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2016 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2017 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2018 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2019 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2020 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 
 2021 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3–Q4
 2022 - Q1–Q4
 2023 - Q1–Q4
 2024 - Q1–Q4

Mario

Hey, thanks for thanking me for the edits on Super Mario Bros. 3. If you haven't read the article's talk page already, I plan on taking the article to FA, which is a dream of mine. Heck, even the Spanish version of the article is FA. So, if you are up to helping the page get to FA, just contact me! Thanks for everything. URDNEXT (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Salv, do you still monitor/maintain all things Mario like I do all things Sonic? Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I do try to keep up! I'll be keeping a watchful on this potential FA and might pitch in if I have time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you think the article is ready? User:Salvidrim! URDNEXT (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I wouldn't think so. I mean, I'm seeing basic issues already, like not listing titles in italics...I can't help but think it would not pass the strict FA standards. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you willing to help? Sergecross73 URDNEXT (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I can help with little stuff, here and there. Nothing major though - between being busy, and having a short wiki-attention-span. (Sorry for blowing up your talk page, Salvidrim. I'll stop.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73 The second paragraph of Development is kind of long and rambling. I think it could reasonably be split into development steps that were made for gameplay reasons + artistic inspirations. URDNEXT (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm helping out with the Super Mario Bros. 3 article too, working to trim back anything wordy or fluffy. URDNEXT has done some really good work on it so far. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, ThomasO1989! URDNEXT (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2014, the project has:

Content

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice from Technical 13

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template Editor User:Technical 13. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Obivously. Good luck, T13. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspicion...

I came across an IP creating loads of links to disambiguation pages regarding to US politicians. 1869 in the United States was already strange with the IP working on the same part as sockpuppet User:Kevieman94. But my alarmbells went of when seeing that the IP also made this edit. I regard that 420.000 kb edit on "List of PlayStation 2 games" nearly as the personal signature of NYCSlover. What do you think? The Banner talk 22:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG Indie taskforce icon discussion

Hey Salvidrim. I closed the discussion concerning the Indie Taskforce discussion, as an uninvolved editor. I believe my closing was appropriate, though I've second guessed the exact wording I came up with a bit. I've never closed a discussion, but we all start somewhere. Anyways, I noticed you also weren't involved and wanted to ask if you'd glance over it and offer any suggestions you might have if I misstepped any. -- ferret (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. I see you were involved via the Template's talk page. Well, I'm open to any critique either way. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yea, if I had more time I would've gotten involved more directly, but I have enough trouble keeping up with Lucia's rants as it is without trying to actually support them. I disagree with the use of the icon but not enough to argue about it further. However I feel that referring to Lucia's persistent verbal carpet-bombing as "no real oppisition" only reinforces her (already well-established) idea that she's being victimized, and that in general it might be better to try to demonstrate neutrality on the value of the opinion of dissenting individuals... but then again I'm often biased in favor of the outliers of a community. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the wording I was unhappy with myself. I meant to really address it as two topics. Having an Icon, and Having Fez as the Icon. I reworded it and am happier with how it reads now. I actually just now realized you replied before I changed it, but I didn't have watch set so missed your message till just now. -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, I debated internally whether I should ping you or assume you had watchlisted my page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Oranjitas

Speedy delete article Oranjitas? RobertBolan (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Deleted by CactusWriter. A link and a rationale would have been nice. Or you could have tagged the article with one of the speedy deletion templates. Huon (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Salvidrim!. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Hayes.
Message added 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Forrest Hayes

I am requesting that you undelete the article Forrest Hayes. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and its deletion was not up for discussion for a full week. I kindly ask that we resolve this peacefully, I would not like to report to that you have abused your admin privileges. Please reread WP:G10 and you will see your deletion was in error as there is not libelous nor threatening content. Further more there is not content which is entirelt negative in tone AND unsourced as required by the policy.RobertBolan (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you!

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

  • Are you seriously spamming me with templated messages? This article was piece of shit and we both know it. Shock value or anecdotal humour does not justify having a short sentence about this guy's particular death throning at the top of all the Google searches for his name, and we both know that. You could've had a few more days of discussion and a snow deletion close, you could've maybe had A7 deletion, but no matter what happened, this had to be removed. I may have allowed the AfD to run its course towards deletion if you hadn't been so insistent on preventing it from being blanked, but what's done is done. As an admin, I felt it was irresponsible for me to leave this article published, and your relentlessness could be construed as abuse of my duties as an admin; but luckily, I am more of a mellow guy than a combative one. But, for the sake of transparency, you are always welcome to request review of my actions at WP:AN/I if you believe I have erred in my judgement. But I assure you that if you start your post there with "Salvadrim haz abused his admin privileges!!1!" you will be shot down so hard by the drama-loving/hating crowd there that your future children will be born bruised. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks

Was "thanking" me for this edit another one of your abuses of the "thank" button? It gave me a good laugh like usual. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hehe. I'm running through and closing a month's worth of MfDs, so when I saw the notification that someone had left me a message I expected someone to complain about the deletion of their userpage. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me credit for that one time I backed you three years ago at ANI, haha. :) It is crazy to think its been three years (likely much more) that we've been editing around the same spots though! Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I thanked you mostly for "Salavadrim". :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Gah! I don't know what it is, but I've misspelled it so many times over the years! And its not like its auto-correct or me accidentally spelling it like a real word or something either! I guess I should just stick with Salv or something... Sergecross73 msg me 03:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Civil Rights Museums

Hello,

Thank you for closing the long-overdue discussion for Category:Civil Rights Museums. I noticed, however, that you converted Category:Civil Rights Museums into a category redirect to the new category. Since categories are primarily organizational tools, the old category page is typically not retained following a rename at WP:CFD (unlike article moves at WP:RM), and in this case in particular I think that the redirect should not exist. One of the functions of a category redirect is prompting a bot to move articles placed in the "redirect" category to the "target" category. In this instance, it would be incorrect to assume that every civil rights museum pertains to the African-American Civil Rights Movements of the 1950s–1960s.

In lieu of a WP:RFD, would you be willing to consider deleting the category redirect?

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your revert

Go rant elsewhere. You've made me lose all desire to help you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, I've never had any dialogue w/ you before that I recall. I didn't get any real answer at the AN, and, I did nothing wrong there, until lambasted with bullshit. I have real concerns (Sjakkalle block threat based on baseless claim I violated IBAN, and the attempt to use IBAN to gag content commentary, which IBAN is not about). I feel there are some ambiguities at WP:IBAN, that concerns me too, but less than my immediate concerns mentioned. (Is your position you want me to drop dead and let an admin abusively accuse and threaten me without basis, and censor me related to comments I usually make about edits? You think that's a good and wholesome plan for either me or the WP!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the only good plan is to drop it and move on to something else. You and I both know from your previous thread that you will find no help at AN, and your relentless combativeness is likely to be used by an admin as a justification for a block; I'm trying to help you avoid this. Obviously, I have no control over you, and if you insist on submitting yourself to this... the best I can do is wish you good luck. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm "combative"? The users who responded with nothing substantive, but all measure of BS ... (I made my case sincerely and in good faith. Dennis started making meaningless comments and demeaning comments like "YOU are the problem" and "you live a sheltered life" and other nonsense. That's non-combative?)

      What am I supposed to do about my real concerns (a bogus revert by Sjakkalle, a bogus claim of IBAN violation, a bogus threat to block). IBAN isn't written to suppress editors commenting on content -- even the user I'm in IBAN with made the case aggressively to Drmies that he as editor had every right to do so and IBAN did not prohibit it; I agree with that position. Now Sjakkalle by the behest of that user obviously, are trying to suppress my ability to comment on content. I'm supposed to let all of that stand?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

    • I'm simply looking for clarification on the IBAN. (Why? Because my good-faith reading of it told me I was in compliance. Then next thing I know I've got a hostile admin reverting me, accusing me of violation, and threatening me with a block.) I thought AN was the place to go to get clarification on such things. (I didn't go to AN to be scolded and told "YOU are the problem" by the likes of Dennis Brown, and that I lead a "sheltered life". [Who's combative!?] And the notion that WP:IBAN is intended to "control thinking" and therefore I could be in violation of policy and also potentially blocked, based on my private thoughts, ... that is just beyond absurd ["Thought-Police"?!].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)**Thx for your genuine concern re my editorship welfare. I think it's inescapable everything carries a price. Including folding when nothing's achieved. No interest in martyrdom; I tried to keep a better cool 2nd time. (No discussion. No clarification. My concerns were real.) Perhaps no one understands IBAN because that policy is incomplete. And no one likes to say they "don't know". And working something out hurts brain cells. These are my suppositions. Thx again nice to meet you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit

Just curious about this edit. I, of course, assume it was inadvertent, but some of the text added was very odd. Just wanted to make sure you're okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh my god, what the fuck happened there!?! I saw a typo and only meants to correct it. I didn't actually check the article back after saving so never noticed this... and now I can't even remember what the typo was. Whack me with a whale. (Also, the lack of ping makes me suppose you meant to post this on my talkpage?) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
However, there was no added text, it just removed a huge chunk of it for some reason. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(sorry about the misposting) If you look at the top part of the diff, it looks like you added text. I've now looked on the left side lower down and kinda see where that text came from. What'd you have - oil on your fingers? :-) Anyway, no worries, I was just concerned that your account was compromised, especially because at that point there were no edits by you afterwards, even though I know that compromised accounts rarely happen. Think of it as a little drama in our otherwise humdrum lives. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I'm going to turn on e-mail notification for reverts... I just edited this and went off to eat, so it wasn't until I checked my Watchlist later and saw your edit that I realized what a gory mess I had made of the article. I can only assume my phone somehow highlighted a large part of the article and deleted or wrote over it while I was trying to hit the "save" button. *shrugs* Thanks for reacting quickly. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Ha, this gave me a good laugh in real life. Luckily no one was around, so I didn't have to worry about explaining what I was laughing about... Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Why you protected the page?

Resolved
 – Thank you for resolving :-)

I had just readied the 3rr report against snaaake, I don't see that any protection was requested at all, noted that you had expressed before that you don't want snaaake to be blocked or anything like that, I really think that you should undo this action or let me know if you have any good reason behind this. Given that you have basically supported his version which is clearly against the consensus and history of the page itself. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Antifeminism

Please see comments on Talk:Antifeminism#.2219th_century_...._other_antifemnists.22_.28again.29

I have aready replied. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First article submission

Hi Salvidrim! (Notice I used the exclamation point!)  :)

I appreciate your help today. In your message, you said that my article on Ted Yoder may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I read over the guidelines and I'm not seeing where my article falls short. Can you give me some guidance, please, on how I need to revise it?

Thanks so much for your time. Stromata9 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! First of all: when posting talk page messages, end them with ~~~~, that will automatically append your username and the date.
As for the article, although I have not done an in-depth review, the article does not cite any reliable sources that would establish notability. I recommend you give a read to the following policies, as it may help you understand what makes a good Wikipedia article: Subjects must be notable, facts must be verifiable, the tone must be neutral, and the most important, our policy of the notability of musicians. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for responding. I read over the guidelines for musician notability. Ted seems to fit criteria #7 and #9. He is a nationally known figure for his (very eclectic) instrument and he won the national championship title for that instrument in 2010. For reliable sources, I will add links to a news article and an NPR interview. DO you think that will be sufficient? Stromata9 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)stromata9

It will definitely help! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aurora

I recently created and edited the Aurora Wikipedia draft and I noticed that you deleted it without an explanation. I was wondering if you could give me one? And explain how you could just delete the whole page when it was a draft; it wasn;t even published yet. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.227.194 (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was aso wondering why the Aurora Draft got deleted so quickly? Doesn't it have to be reviewed properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.227.194 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Mr. De Souza! I deleted both of your drafts because you have spent the better half of the afternoon convincing me, and others, that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote the company you founded, Aurora IT. Don't do that. If you persist, your editing privileges may be revoked. Have a good day! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear User:Salvidrim!, thank you for the WikiLove! I am glad that I have acquired such a wonderful skill :) With regards, AnupamTalk 04:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Hey, Salvidrim, how's it going! I was wondering if you could help me with Sleeping Dogs (video game) since I really need help with it. Ever since I joined Wiki I have been trying to tackle the article alone but I can't seem to do it by myself wit the amount of experience I have. Is there any way you could help me take it to GA? I know you usually only edit history related articles, but this one is rated B class so it should be an easy thing for both of us. What do you think? Thanks for everything in advance, URDNEXT (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Where the hell do you gather that I "usually only edit history related articles"!? Hehe. I'll give it a look when I have time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Where did indiamart redirect to, and why was the article most recently deleted? Helpee on IRC pestering me about this, just wondering, really quickly, don't mean to be a hassle. Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 16:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied on IRC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep using that shortcut

I do not think it means what you think it means. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. That'll teach me not to double-check my shortcuts. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Suspicion...

Perhaps our friend from New York is back. The combination of his edits on Playstation articles and the introduction of 6 links to disambiguation pages at "List of PlayStation 4 games" gives me that feeling. Although, by now it is nothing more than suspicion... The Banner talk 09:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, but I don't think it's enough to WP:DUCK it; no over-large edits, practically no edits outside of that one list, unregistered contributions (which is not typical of NYCSlover), and SPIs for IPs are rarely a good idea. Thanks for your vigilance, though; I'll definitely keep an eye on this one! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

First some action here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCSlover The Banner talk 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cash Cash

I appreciate your input and all...but there's been a lot of questions about the edits you made, the sources you used, etc, with no commentary from you. It'd be great if you could discuss some, considering how much I'm hounding them to discuss first, and edit later... Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, accept my apologies; I understand that I'm not making your life any easier. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it's fine, I appreciated the effort and thought of it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

User:ImiBill

Hi! I just got back from a trip, so my apologies for not responding sooner. ImiBill's explanation seems reasonable - I'm aware that LifeVantage hired CastleKing1440 to post an article using copy that they had provided, and it was subsequently posted by a definite duck. The job remained (and remains) ongoing. It is possible that ImiBill was employed independent of CastleKing1440 prior to CastleKing1440's contract, and they returned to post the article even though CastleKing1440 was still employed to post it. I'm not opposed to unblocking, although their contributions raise some separate red flags. - Bilby (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming

Although I've cast a Delete out in every discussion, I have no issue with it being in the Draft space since the mainspace is salted. That said, there may be some more hist merging to do, and more massaging of the talk page. My watchpage keeps following this through the various page moves... Here's a rough time line:

  1. Mainspace was AFD deleted
  2. Restored to User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming for editing
  3. Article recreated by Beachparadise, with contents of Smile Lee's version. This was not a page move.
  4. Mainspace speedy deleted
  5. ???? Unsure if it was restored again to User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming or never deleted (Not exactly sure here, lots of deletions in the log)
  6. DRV concluded with endorse.
  7. Xui moved User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming back to mainspace
  8. Mainspace was AFD deleted / Speedy Deleted
  9. Xui created User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming from external sources.

I think the history for User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming may have been retained correctly, but there was a lot of discussion at User_talk:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming that has been lost. Could you check on that one? -- ferret (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I see now the talk page never got deleted. Not sure the best way to merge. -- ferret (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I will look into it a bit later. I might histmerge anyways but leave a few deleted revisions under the draft title. Thanks for the heads-up! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in WP:AN

You have been subject in WP:AN here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Excessive topic-ban. Lucia Black (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Talk page archiving

Thanks! No worries, that was helpful; it was getting a bit long. --PresN 01:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm relieved you didn't chew me out. It's my pleasure to help! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Damián80

Congratulations, Salvidrim, you have joined the cadre of administrators who don't check with the blocking admin before unblocking a user. Not to mention that several other administrators denied this user's requests. All I can say is I don't appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Aw, come on, don't be so harsh. I unblocked purely based on behavioural grounds per the third unblock request, the block was going to expire anyways, and you hadn't commented on the three previous unblock requests. And he's heading for another block anyways. I wish I had been appraised of the whole situation before deciding, but it was one of the simpler ways to get him to stop clogging IRC. I am not calling your judgement into question whatsoever and I still hold you in high esteem amongst admins. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Clogging IRC is not a reason to unblock him. His continued pathetic requests weren't either. I've seen so many editors who are so dependent on Wikipedia that they'll say anything to get unblocked. Unfortunately, once they are, they don't improve their behavior, and then they go back to pleading. All I ask is you follow policy and talk to me first. There was nothing urgent about unblocking him, and the week-long block was intentional because of his previous blocks. Letting him off early defeats the notion of escalating blocks for the same misconduct. I know you're a good fellow, but this is a sore point with me. And, in reality, it applies to any blocking admin. Plus, it makes good sense. As for commenting, I sometimes comment if I have something to say, but his nonsense didn't merit any comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll readily admit it wasn't my Best Decision of the Year. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You'very disarming. I'll bite. What was your best decision of the year? --Bbb23 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Unnnh, probably creating this and inviting everyone who opposed my RfA to leave me their feedback? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion reason - Gary Tedman

Hi Salvidrim!

I am actually the subject of the deleted article (Gary Tedman), the article was put online by someone I know very well but who is also an author, published academic in her own right in the same field. I did not know that she put it on initially. Now it has been put out of its misery.

Nevertheless, I would like to know the reason for deletion, I read the debate and I've ended up interested (as you would), this seems to be missing and the deletion log refers here, or maybe I have missed it (I'm not so familiar with the system). Thanks. Ninjabeard (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because the community determined in this discussion that the subject did not meet one of Wikipedia's applicable notabilty criteria (WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't disagree, there are very few third party sources for my work (alas!). I expected at least some discussion along the lines of General notes No. 3 of the guidelines though (well, I can't be objective).

Is there a way to get a copy of the deleted page?

Will not be restored - I only userfy deleted articles when they were deleted uncontroversially, and not articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Tedman, it cannot be undeleted. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, a request may be made at deletion review. At the present time, this is not an appropriate topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim!, wasn't asking for restoration/Userfy etc, just a copy so I could personally use the links, but it is ok now. Ninjabeard (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hello S. I saw your removal of the post at at AN. Another post just like it was made here. Just thought you should know. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it certainly is important info to know the first "account" used in case we need an SPI. However that diff is quite less "grievous" IMO than the one I RevDel'ed so I'll leave it alone for now. Thanks for keeping an eye out for whoever this scumbag is. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Update. it looks like DoRD removed it. Thanks for your time in looking into this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks to DoRD, then! I'm kinda puzzled as to why they commented on an apparently random AN/I thread, and the specifically commented on Lucia Black on AN, though... I've got most of her userspace watchlisted so if whoever this is tries to stir some trouble, I'll make sure it doesn't go unnoticed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
My guess (a WP:OR violation for sure) is that, after their attack on LB, they saw the drama at AN/I and thought it would be fun to drop in. Probably many other possibilities though. Happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A polite request

You are supposed to lead by example. Please have the courtesy to engage in discussion before reverting a decision by a fellow admin. You would probably find you'd get what you want but some of us still believe in old fashioned niceties.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for that. Your post didn't seem like a decline at all (you didn't address the request at all, only saying that "his new account could be blocked"). I explained why that wasn't the case and then responded to the request at hand. I don't think it falls the definition of "reverting your actions", I was just responding to a request which hadn't been responded to yet. Sorry if it came off as rude to you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No harm done - I have a very thick skin that comes with age ;) However, it helps to avoid giving the the anti-admin brigade more ammo for thier cause, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Los miserables

Hi, The article Los miserables was created by me on October 7, 2013. Now in the present article, only a redirection appears, made on January 14, 2014, and does not appear who created the article, because I want to know if you can do something, or merge the two records.--Damián (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The histories ("records) cannot be merged because they overlap during a significant portion of time. See WP:PARALLEL. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Trails

>:( Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought that's already how it was, I hadn't noticed the second one had a standalone article. Sorry! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but it still sounds like you're advocating merging all of them, which is especially perplexing because "1" and the series article are the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I was advocating keeping all three games in the same article because I was under the impression the first two games already were in that single series article. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. No, it's not quite like that. Trails in the Sky Second Chapter was created a year ago, by me. It received a bunch of coverage over the years when the publisher said it couldn't afford to do the project...and then received a ton more upon its announcement of it getting an English release. The Trails in the Sky article is kind of a weird mix between being about the first game and the series. I attempted to clean it up once, but it got too confusing, considering I haven't played any of them yet, and 2 are Japanese only, and I couldn't keep track of what happens in which games to more clearly define it. So it's kind of hard to define that part... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I see that you changed your !vote just prior to me writing that, which took me a while since I had to reword it a few times to make sense. Forgive me. Nevermind. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No probs, dude. I meant to change my !vote earlier than that but didn't get around to it yesterday. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

Alnwick RFC

Thank you for the semiprotection on this article. Unfortunately, the IP came back as soon as the protection ended and re-added the disputed material. I'm not sure what more I can do at this stage as they refuse to talk to me about the problem and as they are on a dynamic IP range, its not as simple as warning them about being blocked. Do you have any suggestions? noq (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You da real MVP

Thank you very much for the info re: the deleted redirect! Way, way back on a summer day in 2005 (I thought I was in school... funny), I did create that. Thank you for helping me find my place in this world, lol! ... holy cow, it's been nine years. I'm old! 74.129.214.237 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have not yet replied to you, IP. But if you found your answer and it satisfies your curiosity, then fine! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

‎Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the R3 criterion (Implausible typos) be broadened?

Is there a reason, why you didn't consider the whole discussion in your closure? Armbrust The Homunculus 05:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I considered it all. I intentionally left open the two subsections where discussion was happening concerning two alternative options to the initially proposed wording change so discussion of the other solutions could continue. I said as much in my close. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving files to Commons

Hello!

I want to move some files(which are in public domain like File:MonopulseDiff.gif) but I can't. Is any especial access level needed? And if you know any easy way for moving files, I'm eager to learn.--Freshman404Talk 09:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never actually worked with images much. Try these instructions? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Jaws 19

Why'd you delete the Jaws 19 / Back to the Future Part II redirect? -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I thought it was created by a vandal I've been tracking, but that version had already been deleted on Sept. 22nd; I've reversed my deletion of Jaws 19. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird close

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor you rejected the "without redirect" part because "that would orphan a very large number of links found in talkpage discussions and I think keeping a project>user redirect is less harmful than creating potential confusion in the histories of hundreds of discussions". But Wikipedia:Concision razor is only linked to from a grand total of 18 pages, not counting MfD itself. I will thus take the redirect to WP:RFD, but it might make more sense to just change the close, since an RfD will waste multiple editors' time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Do what you want, but per WP:R#DELETE there does not seem to be a reason to delete it, and shortcuts from project-space to user essays are generally accepted as non-harmful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on Sleeping Dogs (video game)

Hey buddy! I was wondering if you could give feedback on the Sleeping Dogs peer review, since me, Czar and Tezero plan on taking it to FA soon (like less than a week). So any comments are welcome. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As usual, no promises, but I'll do what I can, when I can. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal regarding a banned user

I would like to make a proposal regarding a banned user. I use this talk page because Salvidrim! made the first relevant ban; some feedback is needed from Go Phightins! too, since this administrator extended the ban.

Two weeks have passed since Lucia Black made her last edit; I think this is enough time for a rest. This user looks like a fine editor and it would be a waste to lose her. This topic ban may be an opportunity to enhance her skills. She has brought articles to GA-class but none as a reviewer, as far as I know. I propose that she review the Klein Bikes nomination, if Jamesx12345 does not object.

Later, I propose that she edit and bring another engineering article to GA-class, this article specifically, the one in the WP:Peer review list. I will follow her activities and be an independent third opinion in content-related issues. She is not expected to use any noticeboards and I will urge her to focus on content if necessary.

In exchange, I would like the topic bans regarding Ghost in the Shell (video game) partially lifted. I would like Lucia Black to perform certain operations related to this article that an IP editor cannot do, such as uploading images and requesting peer reviews. She will not have a voice in the FA preparation. She will not touch the article except for the last step: the WP:FAC process. She is an expert editor and her input will be useful to address concerns that may arise and other editors cannot handle. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, and it would be nice to get it reviewed in the next few weeks. Jamesx12345 15:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Lucia Black is of course free to edit or review anything not pertaining to Japanese Entertainment; it appears evident that Klein Bikes would be an appropriate choice, if she wants to. However, any appeal to lift the active editing restrictions (either in part of in whole) must garner community support at WP:AN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This was intended to be a lightweight procedure. ChrisGualtieri's opinion would be significant. May this user be allowed to express an opinion about this matter and virtually make the decision? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, because both editors are still under a mutual IBAN. There is no "lightweight procedure" for appealing a ban, since it was a community decision, no single admin can repeal it in any way. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Knowing that one single administrator cannot repeal a community decision, may Salvidrim! express his individual opinion about the proposal, or indicate one user that contributed to the first ban decision? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I am declining the express a specific opinion about an potential appeal to one or more of Lucia's editing restrictions. Who the hell are you anyways? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I am an IP editor, the one that is preparing Ghost in the Shell (video game). I am also waiting for the Debian peer review to start; Debian is related to computing and engineering. My interest in Lucia Black should be obvious: she is a top contributor to one article and a potential skilled editor for the others. She is worth the try, but I will not start an appeal with a significant opposition that will yield to an endless discussion and no article improvements.
I hope that answered the question. Since Salvidrim! did not name a user, let me do so. I believe Ryulong is not under an interaction ban and was involved in related incidents. The opinion of this user would be helpful. I hope that Salvidrim! is not bothered if the user answers here to end the discussion. So, may Ryulong answer? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're after. Can who answer to what? Lucia has been inactive for a while. If she wants to return to editing, she can just do it, within the parameters of her editing restrictions. Nobody's yes-or-no answer will change anything and I recommend you just stay focused on improving articles and refrain from getting involved in these interpersonal matters. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, i'm struggling to stay in Wikipedia as it is. First and foremost, my knowledge with most media articles fall within the scope i'm indefinitely banned in. I have attempted to move in other areas multiple times even before the ban. I've attempted WP:COMIC, I've attempted WP:NOVEL, i recently attempted toy-related articles such as Lego and Bionicle and had trouble there myself. So it has to do so much more then just a "choice" to stay or not.

I have no knowledge whatsoever on companies, so i wouldn't know where to look for in Personal (company). And the only reason why I don't review is because there's always one or two things that become an issue: Writing Quality/Grammar, and Verifiability (especially in areas i have no knowledge of). I'm not suited for reviewing articles. Anyone can technically be a reviewer, but that doesn't mean they brought good contributions to reviewing. i'm basically put at "restart". My editing to create quality articles is on halt as i would have to focus more time on learning a new area...and especially for areas that i have no ambition for. Returning to Wikipedia would just be a state of "hell". Just because i bring good contributions, doesn't mean that I'm familiar with every topic. And that's what this indefinite topic ban is...a site ban, and hats what other members including Salvidrim have admitted before.

Going to one's talkpage wont help anyways. If you want to make a proposal, go to WP:AN. Lucia Black (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Light gun games for consoles page

Hello my friend, I just thought I would inform you that series 1500 vol.35 is not a light compatible game and it is confused with series 1500 vol.24.

Kindest wishes Matthew Farmer

(Matthewfarmer@live.co.uk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.225.13 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Vote canvassing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PC Master Race

I disagree with closing the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PC Master Race as no consensus due to vote brigading (called Canvassing here) from Reddit as was mentioned in the vote by the nominator and with many users tagged by yourself as Wikipedia:Canvassing violators. I opened a discussion on the talk page as the vote has been archived. --WhereAmI (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not tag any SPA. Amongst other partipants, the opinions divided almost equally between mergeing and deleting, with a few odd opinions to keep. There is literally no way for this AfD, as it was, to be closed with a consensus affirming either outcome. If you disagree with my closure, I will not object to a WP:DRV. Please let me know if you opt for that, as I will wish to comment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
My bad on the talk page for the deletion, I was under the impression "such as the article's talk page" mean the deletions talk page. I think I've been misreading things too much tonight and will consider a deletion review in the morning. --WhereAmI (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem buddy. If you want a copy of what you had posted on the talk's AfD lemme know. I would've closed the AfD with consensus to Merge is there was any agreement on the target, but closing with consensus to merge without consensus on a target seems... I dunno, reckless? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page in danger of deletion

Hi Salvidrim! Could you possibly help me with a article I created? I made Tracie Molton and it's now in danger of being deleted and I even added sources. Could you explain to me what I doing wrong on it? Mr. Lean 'n' Green (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you need WP:REFERENCEs for starters. Having more than one sentence of content helps too... Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Jontron

Why did you get rid of the page Jontron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.49.21 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually restored the article some time ago after Jon talked about it on Twitter. It was then deleted by someone else after a community discussion. Thanks for being a JonTron fan! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Masthead Studios has been accepted

Masthead Studios, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(t) Josve05a (c) 14:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kelle Roos

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kelle Roos. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 92.18.202.2 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

Salvidrim!, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
 YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

14:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see my abuse of the "Thanks" function is received positively! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Isil

I nominated "Isil" in RfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy1339 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvidrim!/Q3_2014_Archive&oldid=1251250636"