Jump to content

User talk:Salvidrim!/Q4 2013 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


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2013, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 11:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Silver Lake Village (Michigan)

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination) to fulfill this request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. May I ask why you determined redirect (no deletion) and full protection to be the consensus outcome?

  • The count was 8 delete to 3 merge (the AfD count is missing Technical 13). I am interested in how you chose to weight them.
  • The sources are obviously terrible. Floquenbeam pointed out that they were worse than before, and I evaluated the three best sources as barely usable.
    • Since the sources were uniformly poor, I chose to skip writing a detailed analysis at the AfD. Of the 17 sources in the version at AfD:
      • 7 are business/corporate websites confirming that their locations exist
      • 3 are LoopNet listings or search results; 1 more is on the similar "online commercial real estate network", Cityfeet
      • WaterWinterWonderland.com is a Michigan tourism fan site
      • Lake Effect Car Wash business listing on Patch, which seems to be a local news/blog/social media startup
      • Silver Lining Rewards Program on Fenton Be Closer.com, run by Fenton City Hall
  • None of the merge supporters specified what should be merged. I challenged Candleabracadabra with the WP:Merge what? essay, and he did a merge, but I did not respond due to Kww's revision deletion. The merged text was reduced but still relied on the inappropriate sources.
  • Thincat referred to WP:PRESERVE, but WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) determined that WP:PRESERVE does not confer extra weight to a merge recommendation.

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Deletion, merging and redirecting have the same effect on end-users: the AfD'ed title is no longer an article, which is something everyone can agree was the needed result. In cases where there is consensus to delete with suggestions to merge and redirect (or userfy), and there is no copyvio or other violation concerns that would support a supression of the former article's revisions, I find it preferable to implement the consensus by redirecting (or userfying) and letting users merge what they feel should be merged, if anything. If you don't think anything should be merged, don't merge any content from the AfD'ed article. If you object to edits from others to the target page, discuss them on the target page. And as noted, I would've salted the deleted title as requested in the AfD, and only applied the same principle to the redirected title. I think this is really a non-issue with little impact; whether the revisions are supressed through deletion or hidden through redirection only changes whether a non-administrator can view the revisions in question, and perhaps make use of them. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, merging and redirecting are forms of "keep", which are substantially different from delete. I have a hard time seeing any consensus other than "delete" in that AFD myself, especially given that the material is essentially identical to the previously deleted article.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • *shrugs* I don't necessarily agree with that perspective but if that's the current consensus, I'll work that way for the time being. Closure changed and implemented. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for amending your close. By the way, if you decide that you prefer WP:Deletion review over extended discussion here, please let us know. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I am not sure that was the best way to avoid DRV! Firstly, concerning the criticism of my selective "merge", the close of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect makes no mention (even implied mention) of WP:PRESERVE. It says "the underlying strength of the argument for the position is what matters most". Kww said not much weight should be given to merge without a statement of what to merge and S Marshall thought extra weight could be derived from WP:PRESERVE. Most people ignored this aspect. I argued "as Candleabracadabra suggests" who said merge "the key bits to the Fenton, Michigan article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such." Not terribly specific, I agree. And he presumably made (improperly) a highly specific proposal but it was deleted and so was not available for review. Flatscan was broad-minded enough to suggest what might be merged "The Flint Journal piece on Fenton from the old article is the best source. The Silver Lake Park page on the City of Fenton website might support a sentence about the park." And, while we are addressing weak arguments, how about Flatscan's "According to WP:Places of local interest (essay), the relevant guideline is WP:Notability (organizations and companies). The sourcing is completely insufficient to support this article." Everyone agreed an article wasn't justified. However, the argument about lack of notability does nothing at all to argue against redirect or merge. In an article on a non-notable topic, there may be material entirely suitable for merge. Kww's delete argument was strong (but support from policy is dubious) but the close did not seem to address the G4 argument in any way at all.
I think you were wrong to give way to this special pleading without giving others a chance to have their say. I suggest you revert the close completely and leave it to someone else to do. Alternatively relist or DRV. Thincat (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the RfC, the numbered choices in the prompt were selected to span the spectrum of expected responses. S Marshall wrote at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge, redirect at AfD, "I would put myself at about 2.5". Option 4 is "same weight". Options 2 and 3, which explicitly reference WP:PRESERVE, were not found to reflect consensus.
  • I'll grant that my delete argument was based on notability (and weak against merge), but I replied to Candleabracadabra's merge recommendation in the same edit. I should have written more criticism of the sources at the AfD.
  • My request only asked Salvidrim! to explain his reasoning, although a reader could reasonably infer that I would be willing to go to DRV from its length. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The pre-first-AfD diff and the post-recreation-diff are IMO sufficiently similar to raise G4 concerns, and yet sufficiently different to reasonably oppose to a G4 deletion. And as mentioned in my close -- you want the contents of the deleted article to potentially merge it somewhere else? Fine by me, I can send them to you and you can do whatever you want with them. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I'll think what to do which will also give a chance for other people to chime in here. I would be pretty sure a G4 deletion would have been overturned at DRV but certainly there would have be a body of support for G4 deletion. See [1][2][3] I personally would have been happy with your original protected redirect retaining history. I can see no valid reason for blocking access to the material. I agree that nobody thought an article was justified. If I decide not raise the principle then I will ask you for the deleted content. However, if the wording were to be used we would need to maintain attribution in some way. Many thanks. Thincat (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I am here because I believe that the consensus was delete and that the merge arguments were insufficient to move it to redirect. Rather than merging inappropriate tone and sources from the AfD'd article, I would write fresh from the 2–3 passable refs, allowed by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, Bare references. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Naqvi Orientation

Nannadeem (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Would you be kind enough to tell me why the Article Naqvi Orientation deleted. If you find observations/reservations can be pointed out for further improvement. Please remember Science does not have language or religion/region. And nothing in this universe is new nor can be new whether matter/words or pictures - things we say new are things which already existed.Nannadeem (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC) I have read the observations/noting of admins. Thanks for all. It is my surprise to say word Community used in terms of Biosphere sense. see value of Ist Naqvi family (i.e. Imam Naqi & his sons). With ref to my religious accountability ok its fact. This is my first Article. I would contribute three more Articles (i) POLE an energy base article (ii) Big Bang and its values in the 04 religions (iii) Religions is/are for us. So, being a human, I need encouragement by pointing out mistakes or misunderstanding, if I persist then deletion option is justifiable.

re: wikiRaese412 deletion

Salvidrim, hi, thanks for requested help in deleting wikiRaese412 (for potential 'confusion' with using 'wiki' in name) and moving content to user: Freeryde007. I was trying to consolidate with Freeryde007 user name, yet I am unable to login as it says 'no email is associated with it.' Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRaese412 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I only deleted the broken link User:WikiRaese412/sandbox because it was redirecting to your former article submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theodore H. Schwartz (2), which was deleted after you blanked it. And I see that you've logged in your new User:Freeryde007 account after posting this, so I assume you were able to login after all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Orthotylus flavosparsus

FYI, I reversed your speedy deletion of Orthotylus flavosparsus. Mishae put it up for deletion (and he wasn't really sole editor, so G7 probably shouldn't have applied, but whatever), and then re-created it under the belief that this would save space on the server somehow. See [4] and [5] for discussion. I ran across it while dealing with yet another speedy nomination from him (which I declined) and I apologize for not discussing with you first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, it really IS a rather bad reason to delete an article since deleted revisions stay stored anyhow. And I did analyze the history and found that Mishae was the only significant editor of the article, but must've missed this diff which invalidates G7. I see you've taken up to AN/I and wish you the best of lucks in getting this all sorted out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Mario Kart: Double Dash‼

You accidentally reverted the title back from non-unicode version, Mario Kart: Double Dash!! Explanations? --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not accidentally, AND I explained it on the talk page. "!!" is used as a parameter in some table, thus not using the unicode character breaks formattin. It was probably the reason for the initial move but wasn't explained clearly and nobody raised that issue in the RM. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pratyya Ghosh/B S Ajaikumar

Hey Salvidrim!, I've put that in my userspace for creating. Why it got deleted and Can you please restore that?--Pratyya (শারদীয় শুভেচ্ছা) 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You moved it to B S Ajaikumar on September 13th, where it was nominated for CSD per WP:CSD#A7. @GiantSnowman: instead redirected it to HCG Hospitals. You moved HCG Hospitals to User:Pratyya Ghosh/HCG Hospitals on September 16th; a bot automatically retargeted the redirect B S Ajaikumar from HCG Hospitals to User:Pratyya Ghosh/HCG Hospitals, and it was then deleted per WP:CSD#R2 as a mainspace redirect pointing towards userspace. The only deleted revision present at User:Pratyya Ghosh/B S Ajaikumar is a redirect to the now-deleted B S Ajaikumar per A7 (then R2), so there is nothing to restore at that title. Do you want me to reuserfy the deleted revisions of B S Ajaikumar? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

More of that "vigilance" stuff

Your signature still links to User talk:Salvidrim. Rgrds. --64.85.216.92 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it redirects, does it really matter? --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Still.... how did nobody tell me before?! Haha, at least now it's fixed. Thanks IP! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

What is your position?

What is your position on 'censorship'? Do you support it or oppose it and why?EmbracingCensorship (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you just going about asking people on the project how they feel about censorship, trying to push in favor of it? As you are probably starting to guess based off of all the responses you're getting, you're not going to garner much support on a website that aims to spread information with the world, and has a specific policy called WP:NOTCENSORED... Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I am only trying to help wikipedia move forward. Global censorship is heavily on the rise, so it would be beneficial to us all if wikipedia was, indeed, censored.EmbracingCensorship (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but its fundamentally against what Wikipedia is. Its like going into a Pet Store and telling them its beneficial for them to stop selling dogs. Its an extremely subjective claim, and doesn't make sense to make that appeal to that given audience. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Tetris Attack

My apologies if I came off as harsh. The reason being that I'm no fan of what I feel is unnecessary bureaucracy. I just feel that the arguments made back then are fairly clearly not good reasons to keep the articles separate, especially not today where we favour merging versions of games (for example, Animal Forest was merged into Animal Crossing). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, as I said, nothing personal. I just feel the merge/split of these two subjects will never be uncontroversial and I think whatever outcome can only benefit from renewed consensus. A discussion every 5 years is a reasonable pace for a debated decision. As long as it doesn't become WP:NIN's Genesis/Mega Drive. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Could use your assistance

I was reviewing Abolfazl Ramezani Moghaddam and I did a google search to find that much of the page didn't make sense. The man according to the search was a UK national, the companies owned by other people (note one of the companies has just changed name)..I could be wrong. But I put a CSD on it hoping someone else could comment. The references are all links to the page itself which could be a coding mistake. But the owner has repeatedly removed the tag although I asked him not to. I have put it back a couple of times but I won't keep doing it because I won't go to war. But I could use a sensible third person to take a look at the page and check it. I will back off in the meantime and leave it alone. Will you have a peak? I ask because you seemed to be online. -- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 14:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I may have missed you online so I also asked JohnCD to take a look. Thanks -- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 15:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yea, sorry, when I'm at work I'm on-wiki for small bursts of a few minutes every once in a while. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Never a problem - I tend to take a peak at who just deleted something and ping them if I have an admin type question. Then either I forget about it for a while or I get impatient and ask someone else. I try to leave a note once I get an answer and it looks like JohnCD got it. :-) 🍺 Antiqueight confer 15:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Game Machines

What sales figure did the book give for Mega Drive sales? « Ryūkotsusei » 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me you have that book. I ran into this scan.[6] « Ryūkotsusei » 22:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I had completely forgotten about this! I had sent a message to someone who had uploaded a leaf-through video on Youtube asking for a scan or picture of the page because there was some debate at the time; I'd recommend you message them too. Good luck! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit War!

There was no edit war going on to my knowledge?!. Editing war involves reverting over and over again, I didn't do that, I just changed the name back once today and changed the redirects like the page told me to after I made the move. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The user showed me the official translation of the "Brothers" part (being "Bros." instead), so I highly doubt there will be any more confusion. Also, it wasn't three reverts. Magicperson6969 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
MP moved the page, Vaati reverted, MP re-reverted, and Vaati re-re-reverted. Nobody violated WP:3RR and nobody was blocked, but that evidently constitutes move-warring (the "back and forth" mentioned above). If you both agree on a title, I have no objections to moving there and unprotecting, as you're currently the only editors engaged in that dispute. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Move 1; MP6969 MV One: 03:55, 11 August 2013‎, Vaati MV One: 09:20, 19 October 2013‎. Move 2; MP6969 MV Two: 21:40, 3 November 2013‎, Vaati MV Two: 19:09, 4 November 2013‎. All those moves weren't even made on the same day, in fact, Moves #1 where made at least a month apart from each other, while Moves #1 and #2 where made at least a tiny bit over a week apart, how can that be "Move-Warring" and MP6969 even said that since I've provided the flyer as proof, "I highly doubt there will be any more confusion". --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing "WP:3RR" and edit warring". It can be deemed "edit warring" pretty much any time someone isn't following WP:BRD, which is what it sounds like what happened. Its a rather minor instance of edit warring, but an instance none the less. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I honestly had no intent for an edit war at all, that's why I provided MP6969 the flyer, but if that's the case, then I guess it's time to drop it and move on with the Future. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Username or IP removed"

Hi! Just curious why the username or IP of that edit on WP:VG talk was removed and why I can't see it. Not disputing just haven't seen that before. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • As you can see from the logs, the reason is: User edited while logged-out, revealing IP address. At home I wouldn't have minded but I'm editing from inside my employer's network infrastructure (we're an ISP) and I'm pretty sure they'd rather keep their IP information private. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Civ V page that I CSD

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the message you left (even if I didn't see it until just now), and that me listing that page for deletion was purely because I am drowning in subpages and wanted to get rid of as many of the old ones as I could. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I deleted it so quickly because I had it watchlisted. Frankly it was stupid to leave the message there, where you wouldn't see it. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Target (project) was accepted

Target (project), 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!

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure I never submitted this... A mistake maybe? Perhaps the real author would like to he notified. :) {MobileSalv} 04:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.141.197 (talk)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(Re-)Assessment inquiry

I noticed that you had a somewhat less positive opinion about the current state of Kart Fighter than the assessment a few hours earlier. It's not really my primary improvement topic right now (it's actually just a random thing I bailed out of AFD, to be honest), but because I'm never satisfied producing shoddy work, I was wondering if you'd give some insight on which B-class criteria I'm short on there? It's obviously going to be limited by the dearth of substantial coverage, given its nature, but I hope I've done at least a tolerable job with what there is to work with.

In any case, thanks for your input! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • No rush at all! My hopes for this article are naturally pretty limited, but I'd like to get it in as good a shape as possible with what there is to work with. Until then, back to silent film stuff for me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) A number of those sources are of unknown reliability, in my opinion. (TSR, "Pixfans", etc.) Also, the Legacy/Reception section is pretty short, and somewhat vague. (For instance, they praised the music...but why? What about it?) I know it can be harder to solve these sorts of issues with retro games, and with unofficial games, but regardless, its these sorts of things that will probably keep it at C level or worse, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm still hoping I'll be able to get around to giving the article some more attention. I've kept the e-mail notification of your initial poston my talk page in my inbox to make sure I don't forget! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Fire Emblem (video game)#Requested move 2013

Another move request is made, but it's not the title originally proposed in 2008. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The move request is relisted. Join in discussion to comment. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still undecided, and !voting just to say "I'm undecided" seems pointless. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sub 4

hi [7] should probably have been a redirect given the outcome of the Sub 3 article. Could you please undelete and redirect? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely free to recreate as a redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you please undelete first? Hobit (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm tempted to insist on asking why this should be undeleted if you're going to redirect it... surely having a visible history under the redirect changes nothing? However I understand the common convention that soft deletions should be overturned upon request as they technically become a contested PROD and/or at best a no consensus AfD; restore & redirect  Done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm one of those people who believe that if we have an article redirected someone later might want to use the old version as a starting point. So I prefer it be available to folks to do that with unless there is a good reason (BLP generally) not to. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
          • *shrugs* No worries. ;) 22:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif follow-up

This is pointless ranting.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, Saivldrim (Salvidrim, please...). Just as a heads up, Fladrif, who had issues with me back in March and was blocked in April, returned as 75.7.198.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) back in June to evade his indef block and continue the same pattern of personal attacks and was blocked with his talk page access disabled. I took a break back in August for partially this type of abuse and am no longer taking anymore of Fladrif's nonsense; I really cannot stand that turkey. However, I did take a two-month semi-retirement for partially that kind of bullying back in late August to refresh. FYI, Fladrif does have an unfortunately long history of chronic disruptive behavior dating way back to 2009. At least the community does not have to put up with him and his bullying anymore. I find his attitude off-putting from the beginning. Other than that, I hope everything is going well. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeratul

I don't think this should've been closed with so few votes; I'd kindly ask you to revert the closure and instead relist the item at AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit frequency

In response to your support on User:New Age Retro Hippie's RFA, I have to agree that too many people oppose because of this. I do agree that time and edit counts should be a good yardstick but seriously, very few people are able to sit in front of the computer all day without having to worry about real life chores and other duties. Aside from that offices are putting Websense et el on their networks that block the wiki.

I've also have a couple of long wikibreaks (outside the 5 years from start) but I always find some time here and there to do some editing when I good improvement pops up. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It's a small miracle my own RfA passed despite my very slow editing rate and relatively recent arrival (hardly over a year at that time)... and also despite other reasons. I don't remember who said this, but "it's important for an editor to have significant contributions, but past "any", the quantity is irrelevant". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've got an eye on RFA, too but I'll wait until I have 5000 first. I do like it when I find other video game editors, though. What is your favorite game? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 09:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I passed my RFA with no real problems, but I found the whole process very nerve-wrecking, and I feel like it could have really destroyed one of my favorite hobbies had it not gone well. (I mean, I'm sure there's people here and there who don't like me, and that's natural, but the thought of an entire community effectively saying "We don't approve of you" is rough.) So, I have a hard time referring anyone to the process. I'm also happy yours passed Salv, or I would have felt guilty. But hey, at least its something you only have to pass once, unless you really mess up as an Admin... Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oy, don't guilt over me Serge. I take responsability for what I get into and I fully expected to get ripped a few new ones during my RfA, so no surprises there! And in reply to @NintendoFan:: There are a few, all on SNES/GBA. If I had to pick just one... hnnnng, let's go for DKC2! But SMW, LoZ:ALttP, FE7, Tetris Attack, all worthy runner ups in their own categories. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course! Fun fact: I only realized AFTER getting 200% that Puzzle Pieces didn't count! About that answer... do you mean Q9, about UAA? I don't recall any significant mention of AIV in my RfA. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

*poke*

Hey Salvidrim :).

We've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Vidja Games, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Apropos of nothing; thanks again for pointing us towards the VG wikiproject as a place to trial Flow. Let me know how you find it :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of the WP:VG admins, I'd like to be able to see how the tools work on the field with Flow boards. Is this something that is possible to enable on Labs for my account? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I just realized that without @Okeyes (WMF):'ing you, you might not see this. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Totally, I'll enable the admin tools now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Not sure if you are referring to me here, but was I being rude, by any chance? Could I have been nicer? I try to get my points across kindly, but sometimes i fail. I'm open to any suggestions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection, reversion, blocking, oh my

I'd like to move the conversation here, if I may, as it's not really relevant to the lifting of Nightscream's block; that's something that probably should've happened, no matter how we got there. My point is this: your first reversion was arguable. I personally strongly disagree with it, as you weren't the one to protect it, standard operating procedure is to not do that, and it violates the principle of least astonishment, which I hold very dear (though occasionally break), but I see where you're coming from, and it's arguable. What I really have an issue with is the second reversion and especially the block itself. Let me be clear here: I 100% know that you were acting in 100% good faith, and that if you had interpreted it as being wheel-warring/involved, you wouldn't have done that. I really am not calling for your head here or anything. But what this looks like from my perspective is that you used your tools to perpetuate an edit war, did it again when someone else did, and then blocked the other party you were edit-warring with. That's badly involved to me, even though there weren't actually content concerns driving it. I know you didn't see it that way (and probably still don't), but in my mind's eye, any time someone reverts someone else more than once, they're edit warring and therefore involved, no matter what the motivations are. Any block that happens subsequently would appear to be an involved block to gain an edge in a content dispute, and we need to avoid the appearance of involvedness as well as the fact of it. As we all know, being right doesn't excuse an edit war, and that includes being right as an admin. Do you see where I'm coming from? Again, I don't really know what my endgame is; I don't think there's any action that actually needs to be taken against you or anyone else (I was considering starting an AN thread just to get second opinions, not to seek any action against anyone, but that would probably end poorly). I just seriously wish we got to this point in a different way, and hopefully, should this happen again God forbid, we will. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Quick note: I'll take the time to read and respond to your message later today, I'm at work currently and I've got to close this week's accounts. Thanks for your patience, I'm not ignoring you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Writ Keeper: First of all, thanks for your advice and guidance -- I have a lot of respect for your judgement and I think everyday is an opportunity for learning; your opinion is always very much welcome.
Everything you're saying makes a lot of sense in hindsight (but then again, doesn't stuff always make more sense in hidnsight?). My first reversion, as explained before, was truly misguided and should not have happened. Protecting + reverting to the last pre-war version is something which still requires a healthy measure of judgement (which is why I assume User:OrangeMike wisely decided not to), but waltzing in after the article was already protected and reverting to an earlier version under the pretense that "I would've protected the article if it wasn't already" is an wonderful example of lack of foresight and over-eagerness to slap people with rules, bordering on arrogance. If I hadn't done that, Nightscream would not have needed to revert again, and things would be very different. My second reversion was performed because the edit was a breach of WP:3RR (although re-re-re-reading the policy page now I'm not sure even that is justification for reverting the edit); however, in doing so I failed to adhere to my own self-imposed 1RR and am kind of... disappointed, I guess. I got over-confident that I was doing the right thing just because Nightscream was obviously doing the wrong thing. I'll admit that I don't see it as traditionally-defined edit-warring on my part, as the content of the edits themselves was almost entirely irrelevant to me; but poorly justified reverts aren't exactly better, are they now? But you know what's justified? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
User:Writ Keeper has written wisely above. I came to the page to express my disappointment with the way you handled the Jessica Nigri situation, and particularly the block on User:Nightscream, which I felt totally inappropriate and something he couldn't have seen coming, since removing inappropriate links from articles on popular culture is exactly what that admin does all day every day. I wanted to point out that as a six-year mop-holder, Nightscream certainly knows policies and a talkpage warning would have been appropriate (and courteous) before taking such a drastic action as blocking an administrator. I would have reminded you that you both have to work together after all this is over. I would have said my reading of the Edit War policy makes it clear that removing obvious violations of policy (such as removing Facebook, YouTube and blog links from BLPs) does not constitute edit warring. I'll strike through all that, seeing you've been trouted, and I won't belabor the point more than I have. Admins disagreeing about how to handle competing visions of policy is the problem with empowering human beings with these responsibilities. It's okay that you two disagree and it's really okay you're willing to admit your own part in this. I strongly encourage you at some point to seek out Nightscream and offer discussion in a collegial manner; both of you are important to the pedia and serve the community with wisdom and industry. You've demonstrated in your comments above your value to the project. Good for you and good for all of us. BusterD (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Writing a personal message sure is the way to go!

...or not. :-P --Soetermans. T / C 22:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • He allowed to blank his own talk page, of course. What matters is trying to communicate; if he fails to respond, it's on him, and might play against him at some point. But I've kept it watchlisted for a reason... ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah of course, but he reminds a lot of User talk: Ral539, who also just blanked his talk page again and again. First thing he did after my message was reverting the BioShock template. I wrote a quick new one on BRD, maybe that'll stick. --Soetermans. T / C 22:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, good thinking. I just sent this to WP:SPI. Thanks for your vigilance! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha, you know, the thought of a sock puppet didn't even occur to me! But it would make a lot of sense actually. --Soetermans. T / C 22:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I might've thought it was purely coincidental (after all, this type of user is hardly unique), but the username similarities make it "too-good-to-be-true" in my eyes. But I'm always open to being proven wrong! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, me too... But as you can see I just did some checking also. That would be very coincidental if they just happen to edit the same articles! --Soetermans. T / C 22:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So... how long does a sock puppet investigation usually take? :P --Soetermans. T / C 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "generally not this long", but CUs/clerks get busy, just like everyone else does. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Now Lar is tinkering with the Sonic template in a very similar way that Ral had. If not for the fact that I primarily maintain that particular template, and that he's already at SPI, I probably would have blocked him again, because this is just more repeat behaviors after many warnings and blocks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think a WP:DUCK block may be justified even before the SPI is resolved, I mostly opened it to check for sleepers, because Lar was not created right after Ral was blocked, it was existing for a while before. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Salvidrim and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs)! Now that sockpuppetry was in fact the case, shouldn't Ral539 also be blocked again? Or longer, for block evasion? --Soetermans. T / C 10:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure what the procedure is; I'll read the relevant policy later today if Serge hasn't had time to see if the block should be extended, and for how long. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Lar has been blocked indefinitely, and Ral is still under his 1 month block. If I'm remembering correctly, if he had just posted constructively under another name, there wouldn't be any extension to the main account. However, he was using it continue his disruptive behavior such as editing against consensus on templates and whatnot, so in this situation, I personally think it warrants an extension to the block. I'm open to counter-arguments though if someone feels that this is not correct. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I also think a block extension is justified, but sometimes common wikiprocedure can be counter-intuitive and I'd rather thoroughly read the adminsitrative guidelines on dealing with block evasion before taking action, in order to avoid messy unblock requests. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know what you find. I'll wait for your "go-ahead" before I act on it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I just went ahead and filed a request for arbitration regarding Nightscream. I did not list you as an involved party as I believe this is a much bigger problem than just this one incident, but you may wish to make a statement there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • As mentionned in my edit summary, I'm pretty sure my recent block and the warring/denial events surrounding it are far too significant for me to avoid being considered an involved party; I've listed myself as such. Not involved in the history of Nightscream, but I think it's reasonable to consider that my action was the spark that led to th RFAR. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, I saw this on my watch list and was afraid it was in regards to you, something I was ready to vigorously argue! Glad that's not the case. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • shrugs* You can blame me of taking imperfect decisions from time to time, but I've never been one to shy away from my mistakes. Denial ain't my thing; learning from my errors is much more constructive. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 10:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

RM notification

I've created an RM for the naming of the Space Quest series. Since you participated in the Space Quest V RM, you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Another Ral539 account?

Hi Salvidrim!

This might be a little prematurely, but I've noticed this this user. Three unconstructive edits, on Borderlands 2, Saints Row 2 and {{Saints Row series}} - three things Ral539 has edited. On Borderlands 2, he added "comedic" to the lead, which has also done to Saints Row IV (which took a lot of reverts for Ral539 for actually to source the claim). The template edits were also very similar. It just might be a coincidence, but it looks like another 'nonsense' name like the rest of Ral's other accounts, with three numbers again at the end. Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) said their IP was blocked, does this mean that any account made or edited from that IP address is blocked? Those three edits are of no concern, but that would mean Ral539 still doesn't get why he got blocked in the first place. --Soetermans. T / C 15:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • What Mailer Diablo meant was that he also blocked 74.72.37.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of Lar409 but couldn't specifically point it out because CUs generally avoid commenting on IPs. As for Oshxos916, I'd rather monitor a few more edits to see if we're just being paranoid or if there really keeps on being similar. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Soft redirects

Good evening! I spotted that you softened my redirects to the German talk page – are "hard" directs a problem in en.wp? Otherwise I would like to let them work as normal directs to directly lead to my German user page, just to make sure that I have to deal with only one talk page and making it as easy as it could be for everyone here to contact me. Thx in advance! -- Filterkaffee (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • As per the guideline on cross-wiki redirects: "A soft redirect is a replacement of usual or "hard" redirects when the destination is another site. The technique is particularly likely to be used when redirecting users across Wikimedia sister projects; normal redirects would be undesirable in these circumstances, and hard interwiki redirects are disabled." Soft redirects provide the same "service", because users visiting your local page here will immediately see the notice that this page is redirected to your German page, and will follow the link to post there. Note that this guideline applies to all Wikimedia projects, not just en.wp; hope this clears things up for you! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


Merry Christmas!


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas as well! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

my chess game

Your edit summary has 7...e6, while the edit itself was to 7...b6: which did you intend? Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed my mind midway through the edit, didn't I! I meant to plan 7...b6. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays!



TKK is hoping you have a happy, power outage-free winter holiday season, no matter what holidays you celebrate! Here's to food, drink, playing in the snow, and one more year of meeting our editing goals!

--TKK public (Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!) 00:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh cleanup, where art thou...

So this was copy-paste moved to here at some point in March. I believe there may need to be a histmerge done, but I'm not sure if it's been done already by User:JohnCD (ping!) just from looking (I'm also not good at that. You know that.) I don't know if there's a secret log or something that would tell you if it's been done. If it has been done already I'll redirect the AFC. --TKK public (Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Histmerges are usually done for whole pages; when a whole article is merged into a section of another article, it's pretty much a simple standard merge and there's little else to do; normally a mention of the article being merged in the edit summary is considered sufficient for the purpose of attribution. In this particular case, the sole author of the actual content is Stahir1 on both pages, so no attribution is lost in the edits. I'd recommend retargetting the AfC to the relevant subsection of Imitation, and removing the cleanup template. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Were you planning on submitting evidence for the Nightscream case? If so, the deadline for submitting the evidence is today. Rschen7754 05:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Holidays are taking their toll... I'll try to see if I have anything crucial to add today, otherwise it will have to go by Beeblebrox's evidence alone. {MobileSalv} ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvidrim!/Q4_2013_Archive&oldid=1136144660"