User talk:Salvidrim!/Q1 2014 Archive
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Salvidrim!. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archives |
|
2011 - Q3–Q4 |
Deletion of page
Just noted that you deleted my Wiki page just because I happened to be the writer of it, called it an adverstisement as opposed to my comic and acting history, insulted my Hollywood history by hinting that working as something other than principle is derogatory demeaning, of which you clearly subscribe to, and basing said opinion on IMDB, which in reality is a fan based company that is run by Amazon.com. You really need to rethink your behavior.
Arne Starr
- I don't recall insulting anyone's "Hollywood history". Can you point out what "wiki page" you are referring to? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, please only edit when logged into your account, Arnestarr. Secondly, after looking into this a bit more, I assume you're talking about the Arne Starr article: I only used my tool to delete it because another editor, User:Angelinavesey, proposed it for deletion with the rationale you are referring to. I have just restored the article and created a deletion discussion to which you are free to contribute your opinion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for granting me updated user rights. Happy editing. Cheers Turgan Talk 08:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers! I generally think NPPers have enough on their plate that autopatrolled rights should be granted a bit more... freely, to users who have shown some level of clue and constructive editing. There are a few admins, myself included, who haven't even created the normally expected 50 articles... ;) 08:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Jessica Nigri & Niemti
Hi. I notice that Niemti has been editing the Jessica Nigri article. What is the status of the prior editorial dispute? Am I permitted to edit the article now? Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should not need me, or anyone else, to tell you whether you are involved in an editorial dispute or not. The FPP imposed during the edit warring incident expired this morning, and whatever unblock conditions were agreed upon simply indicated that you accepted "to not edit Jessica Nigri through the current FPP", which was respected. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it only expired this morning, how has Niemti been able to edit the article since December 20?
- (Sorry about the screwed up heading, btw.) Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, it actually expired December 9th. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Sorry about the screwed up heading, btw.) Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Quarter 4, 2013
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2013, the project has:
|
Content
|
Arbitrator workshop proposal
The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. --Rschen7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Recent" in WP:CSD#R3
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 13#MOSS:SECTION HEAD you mentioned that you speedy deleted it as R3 despite it being 20 months old. I'm not joking when I say that is the most egregious abuse of the "recent" requirement I have ever seen!
It is true that "recent" isn't defined, but redirects that are 3 months old are regularly declined for not being recently created (and some people hold 3 weeks to be too long), so nearly 2 years old is blatantly incorrect. I ask that you voluntarily reverse your deletion in favour of the discussion at RfD. I'm frankly flabbergasted by this deletion. There was no reason to speedily close the discussion - it's no more harmful than any of the many other CNR redirects currently nominated and nobody other than the nominator had had chance to reply. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm frankly flabbergasted that this isn't considered 100% uncontroversial clean-up of a shockingly obvious, unused typo. Consider it a G6 instead if it makes it more comfortable for you. Just because nobody noticed it in 20 months doesn't mean that a deletion rationale that was valid back then isn't anymore. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
- Please think for a moment - the "recent" requirement is part of the criteria for a reason! If it wasn't important to consider things like use and external links that can increase over time then R3 would not be time limited. I'm not convinced it's G6 either - are you sure this was unambiguously created in error? Wouldn't the user who created it have tagged it for G7 if that were the case? Anyway, recent discussions of pesudo-namespace redirects has shown that what John Vandenburg regards as uncontroversial is not a reliable indicator of what others will think of as uncontroversial. I'll probably recommend deletion of this when it is discussed, but I can't say that I'm sure that everyone will. Speedy deletion criteria are explicitly to be applied only when a narrow interpretation of the letter of the criterion is unambiguously met, and this is the case for a very good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a MOSS:REDIRECT is unambiguously created in error as a simple typo, and the creator likely didn't notice it anymore than we did, hence the lack of G7 at the time. Notice I have not closed the other PNR RfDs because they are not as uncontroversial. There is no possible outcome for a unused typo redirect other than deletion and forcing a full RfD is a fucking bureaucratic waste of time. And for the record, on top of everything else, this makes it totally eligible for speedy deletion G7. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Neither bureaucracy nor G7 eligiblity make your deletion under R3 any more excusable. Speedy deletion under the wrong criterion is almost as harmful to the project as any other incorrect application of the CSD criteria. Admins are entrusted with the delete button only for use when there is consensus for deletion, because they should be trusted not to use it in any other circumstance. CSD is simply a list of situtations for which there is a consensus that deletion is always desired. When the criteria does not apply neither does the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Aw, come on. Surely there's bigger fish to fry than this. Think about what you're arguing about. He had the blessing of the creator to delete it. The fact of the matter is, he deleted something that had no functional value, and had permission to do so. You're just arguing semantics. Suggesting "misuse of powers" is ludicrous, at worst it could be considered a good faith accident. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fuck off, you know this would've been deleted whether it went through RfD or not, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Find someone else to slap around with your bureaucracy stick. You're not even saying the redirect should be kept (because it obviously shouldn't!). Restoring it to hold an RfD would be a waste of everyone's time and I refuse to disrespect the intelligence of other editors by submitting them to an entirely useless discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Salvidrim is correct. Thryduulf, you are indulging in absurd over-bureaucracy here. — Scott • talk 12:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Neither bureaucracy nor G7 eligiblity make your deletion under R3 any more excusable. Speedy deletion under the wrong criterion is almost as harmful to the project as any other incorrect application of the CSD criteria. Admins are entrusted with the delete button only for use when there is consensus for deletion, because they should be trusted not to use it in any other circumstance. CSD is simply a list of situtations for which there is a consensus that deletion is always desired. When the criteria does not apply neither does the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a MOSS:REDIRECT is unambiguously created in error as a simple typo, and the creator likely didn't notice it anymore than we did, hence the lack of G7 at the time. Notice I have not closed the other PNR RfDs because they are not as uncontroversial. There is no possible outcome for a unused typo redirect other than deletion and forcing a full RfD is a fucking bureaucratic waste of time. And for the record, on top of everything else, this makes it totally eligible for speedy deletion G7. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please think for a moment - the "recent" requirement is part of the criteria for a reason! If it wasn't important to consider things like use and external links that can increase over time then R3 would not be time limited. I'm not convinced it's G6 either - are you sure this was unambiguously created in error? Wouldn't the user who created it have tagged it for G7 if that were the case? Anyway, recent discussions of pesudo-namespace redirects has shown that what John Vandenburg regards as uncontroversial is not a reliable indicator of what others will think of as uncontroversial. I'll probably recommend deletion of this when it is discussed, but I can't say that I'm sure that everyone will. Speedy deletion criteria are explicitly to be applied only when a narrow interpretation of the letter of the criterion is unambiguously met, and this is the case for a very good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the talk page. --Rschen7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The AIDS Support Organisation (TASO)
My page was deleted for violating Wikipedia rules but since I am going to work on a piece until it is accepted, I will retain the title please. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia Matovu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sylvia! I cannot recreate the content that was deleted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) because the material constituted copyright infringement; however, I notice you've started a new draft at User:Sylvia Matovu/The AIDS Support Organization and you're of course welcome to continue improving it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Lucia Black
Not even two days after her return from block, Lucia has been pushing the envelope again by invoking more disputes to gain an advantage in discussions to prevent my work. @Verso.Sciolto: has actually noticed this and informed about it, but Lucia reverted his message with this. Coupled with her bad faith allegations at User talk:Verso.Sciolto, the matter is becoming an issue. Lucia Black has been systematically involving herself in all articles upon which were subjects I expressed interest and action in (independent of Lucia) prior to the interaction ban. The result is I am barred from placing my work in and nominating or even discussing something which I have spent many hours on. I think it is a dirty tactic, and GAMING, and it continues to get worse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration Chris, but please realize that this post is a violation of your interaction ban. You need to forget her very existence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I am making a mistake with WP:IBAN, and please let me know if I am wrong: I am reporting a violation to the admin who last blocked her about another violation. This is part of WP:BANEX as stating I am explicitly allowed to report and ask for clarification (I just put them together in a bad way I suppose). She refers to me (a violation), refers to the past disputes in retort (a possible violation) and she has engaged in "all" the articles I had "held" for the past dispute resolution. Three editors in the ANI said I would not be precluded from placing that material and nominating, but now all pages are being discussed. I need clarification and advice because according to the sanction-er, Tparis, I can work on the articles so much as long as I don't undo her work and edit naturally. She hasn't edited them for years, but I don't want to run afoul of anyone's interpretations. I can hold off, but I want your (as an acting admin) opinion on the matter, on the record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I have time to analyse the situation properly right now but I'll get to it today. I'm not 100% comfortable with handling everything myself considering the history so I might end up seeking a second opinion at AN/I instead of taking action directly. I have read your concerns, you can now step back and get involved in something else. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you and no need to rush; I can always wait some more. And I do appreciate your consideration on this. I've just got Bacon Explosion passed to GA and that was preceded by Baconnaise earlier this week and now I am addressing the issues at the Angels on horseback GA of mine. I might venture into some historic buildings today as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- See AN. I'm not entirely convinced what should be done, if anything, but welcome community review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you and no need to rush; I can always wait some more. And I do appreciate your consideration on this. I've just got Bacon Explosion passed to GA and that was preceded by Baconnaise earlier this week and now I am addressing the issues at the Angels on horseback GA of mine. I might venture into some historic buildings today as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I have time to analyse the situation properly right now but I'll get to it today. I'm not 100% comfortable with handling everything myself considering the history so I might end up seeking a second opinion at AN/I instead of taking action directly. I have read your concerns, you can now step back and get involved in something else. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I am making a mistake with WP:IBAN, and please let me know if I am wrong: I am reporting a violation to the admin who last blocked her about another violation. This is part of WP:BANEX as stating I am explicitly allowed to report and ask for clarification (I just put them together in a bad way I suppose). She refers to me (a violation), refers to the past disputes in retort (a possible violation) and she has engaged in "all" the articles I had "held" for the past dispute resolution. Three editors in the ANI said I would not be precluded from placing that material and nominating, but now all pages are being discussed. I need clarification and advice because according to the sanction-er, Tparis, I can work on the articles so much as long as I don't undo her work and edit naturally. She hasn't edited them for years, but I don't want to run afoul of anyone's interpretations. I can hold off, but I want your (as an acting admin) opinion on the matter, on the record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Should I make a post at AN? I asked you because there is 7 different topics, that have resulted me in being put into "forced silence" by Lucia. Including the RFC made only 4 days after the Iban on one of those articles and see comments like "...it doesn't seem there is an active editor of the series who cares whether they stay in a single page or stay split". The article was split on our GAR's suggestion and I can't comment or post up my work because of the discussion, and Lucia knows this. I was told by 3 editors and Tparis that I can edit the articles and it shouldn't stop me from completing and nominating them. But then Lucia Black broke her Iban to reinsert a copy paste duplication after a close of "no merge" and it wasn't even her work! It was my additions and the condensed summary by myself and Ryulong. Here is the source page. Here is the copy paste diff. A verbatim copy of the sections, so its not "her content" and the close was "no merge". One page should not be wholesale duplicated - I had three edits to go before nominating it to GAN to boot. I have 4 Good Article Nominations worth of content set aside, but I can't touch them or discuss because all are currently under discussion by Lucia Black since the Iban. I want to let AN know about this, but I don't want to make it worse. Its because of the timing and the actions done, that is why I came to you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wait a bit. I'll get back to it later today. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Online gaming
Salvidrim, I made a note about the recent revert on User talk:Guy322, and I'd appreciate your feedback there. I don't see how the Famicom Disk System has anything to do with "online gaming", and regarding the Satellaview, the game itself is never online. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've replied on Guy322's talk page. Satellaview games were played over "some sort of computer network" (streamed) as defined in the first sentence of online gaming; the GameCube article could certainly use some clarification, however. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Saw your reply there, thanks. In the definition you've used from the article, an online game is a game "played over some sort of network". However, Satellaview games are not played over a network. They are downloaded over a network, and then played locally. I would also caution against relying on an article that is missing references for a lot of its content. This is all a moot point, of course, since I think we both agree that further clarification at GameCube will resolve the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Agreed on all grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seen that way, I also agree. I thought Satellaview games were streamed, not downloaded and played locally. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was more like the Nintendo's version of the Sega Channel, although, you seem to be more of a Nintendo fan, so I don't know if that helps at all or not. ;p Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the definition of a Nintendo Kid. I've never played a Sonic game on a sega console. #ShameOnMe ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I started with the Sega Genesis, but it's but I've had every Nintendo system since then. I converted. ;) Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I started with the NES before I walked, and stuck to Nintendo all the way to the Wii, when my home console changed to a PS3 (although for handhelds I'm still a Nintendo guy). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Got the NES a year after it came out, and it was all Nintendo for me through the Nintendo 64, at which point I switched to the PlayStation and later the Xbox. I eventually got the GameCube and Wii for the kids, though I admit I've never really played either. Wow, that felt like a confession! Sorry Sega! --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I started with the NES before I walked, and stuck to Nintendo all the way to the Wii, when my home console changed to a PS3 (although for handhelds I'm still a Nintendo guy). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I started with the Sega Genesis, but it's but I've had every Nintendo system since then. I converted. ;) Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the definition of a Nintendo Kid. I've never played a Sonic game on a sega console. #ShameOnMe ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was more like the Nintendo's version of the Sega Channel, although, you seem to be more of a Nintendo fan, so I don't know if that helps at all or not. ;p Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seen that way, I also agree. I thought Satellaview games were streamed, not downloaded and played locally. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Agreed on all grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Saw your reply there, thanks. In the definition you've used from the article, an online game is a game "played over some sort of network". However, Satellaview games are not played over a network. They are downloaded over a network, and then played locally. I would also caution against relying on an article that is missing references for a lot of its content. This is all a moot point, of course, since I think we both agree that further clarification at GameCube will resolve the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
V-play (game engine)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V-play (game engine), I'm a bit concerned about this closing. The entire Draft-space is less than a month old and from reading the talk page, very little thought was put into how it would function within the project's existing structures...not only deletion discussions but also Articles for Creation, the soon-to-be-retired Article Incubator, and whether or not speedy deletion criteria G13 is applicable to the new space. A user asking for a copy of a deleted article is fine, as that specific user has stepped up to say "give it to me, I'll take responsibility and work on it". But we can't just dump articles that woulds otherwise be deleted into a generic "someone will look at it someday" queue. This subverts what we've been doing for years. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Incubating has long been a possible outcome of an AfD discussion, and the discussions surrounding the creation of Draft-space indiciated specifically that it is where articles should be incubated to. If you have issues with how Draft-space is used, I'm probabl not the one you should complain to. Consensus was to delete/incubate and I find the WP:PRESERVE rationale to be sound. If you disagree that this should be incubated, you can request review of my closure. If you disagree with how it should be incubated, then you can bring it up at the general policy noticeboard. I'm personally not super happy with the half-functioning Draft-space either but the community decided to create it specifically for incubating, thus that's what it's being used for at the moment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've participated in a fair number of XfDs over the years and I do not recall "incubate" as an actual finding. I'll take your word that they exist, but it has to be a rather small % in which that has happened. Honestly, I am considering a DRV, but that's not a reflection on anything really bad with you just that I'm leery of "sent it to Draft:" being a legitimate option in XfD. You said "the community decided to create it specifically for incubating"; where did that discussion take place? I'd like to read up on it before doing anything else. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- For the discusssions that led to the WP:Article Incubator being closed in favor of the creation of Draft-space, start at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator ("With the creation of this namespace, it supercedes the Article Incubator in its function, while also serving as a more logical location for drafts.") and follow the links to the ensuing discussions if you wish. Incubation has been listed for years as a potential outcome in the lede of the WP:AFD page and is also detailed in our deletion policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've participated in a fair number of XfDs over the years and I do not recall "incubate" as an actual finding. I'll take your word that they exist, but it has to be a rather small % in which that has happened. Honestly, I am considering a DRV, but that's not a reflection on anything really bad with you just that I'm leery of "sent it to Draft:" being a legitimate option in XfD. You said "the community decided to create it specifically for incubating"; where did that discussion take place? I'd like to read up on it before doing anything else. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've been involved in a few discussions regarding the new draft space and while I accept that it can function as the replacement for the Article Incubator, I don't see justification for a change of scope from the Incubator. The Incubation criteria requires - "A willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article; or A convincing reason has been put forward why the article would benefit from being put on hold now, to be worked on in the future". I don't see the arguments in the afd as meeting these criteria.Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Diego's rationale satisfies this criteria for me: "However, WP:PRESERVE is an approved policy that covers this precise situation {...} The existence of the game engine is easily verified with the references provided - even if this game engine does not become notable, those references could be used at a wider topic article in a section covering this type of software". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've been involved in a few discussions regarding the new draft space and while I accept that it can function as the replacement for the Article Incubator, I don't see justification for a change of scope from the Incubator. The Incubation criteria requires - "A willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article; or A convincing reason has been put forward why the article would benefit from being put on hold now, to be worked on in the future". I don't see the arguments in the afd as meeting these criteria.Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Your signature
I just thought you might like to know that your signature isn't working as intended:
<span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺ · [[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]] · [[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">✉</span>]]</span>
The 13px Sylfaen; should in fact be font:13px Sylfaen;. At the moment, that rule is not having any effect. (On top of that, if you want to save bytes, you could change background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px; into background:black;padding:0 3px and <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span> into <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Salvidrim!</span> and I think it would still look the same. But that's not what I came here to say.) — This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Imma test that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Tested on the sig above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks TTO! I'll stick to 11px to avoid the sig being significantly taller than the rest. For the smallcaps and white color, the issue is that these are achieved by subst'ed templated inside the wikilink; if I subst it outside the wikilink uses the defaul link color. Here the full markup:
- Tested on the sig above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
<span style="font:11px Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · [[User:Salvidrim!|{{SUBST:smallcaps|{{SUBST:color|white|Salvidrim!}}}}]] · [[User talk:Salvidrim!|{{SUBST:color|white|✉}}]]</span>
- Substing these templates seems like the simplest/shortest solution.☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would just hard-code the HTML spans into the signature if I were you. In particular, the class="smallcaps" does absolutely nothing as far as I can tell, so you may as well not include it.
- Hope you don't feel as though I'm intruding - I just hate to see needlessly bloated signatures. (Mine is needfully bloated - I'm pretty sure there's no way to make the markup any shorter while still keeping the same look...) — This, that and the other (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm thankful for the review, I'm not the best with this kinda code. From what I can see, the smallcaps template does have the desired effect; the template applies both
<span class="smallcaps">and<style="font-variant:small-caps;". If I understand what you're saying correctly, one of these is either redundant or not working? Perhaps the template should be fixed directly? Subst'ing the template in my preferences for it to expand to the spans in my actual signature would then still be the best option... lemme test: ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)- span class="smallcaps"
- span style="font-variant:small-caps"
- The template's page even says that it merely wraps the text inside
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> ... </span>, so I'm not sure why the<span class="smallcaps">is used. There is a talk page discussion that resulted in adding the classname for some CSS purpose but I don't know enough about it all to jump in and change stuff. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm thankful for the review, I'm not the best with this kinda code. From what I can see, the smallcaps template does have the desired effect; the template applies both
- Substing these templates seems like the simplest/shortest solution.☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 24
I reverted your recent edit to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 24 because it undid discussion closures by Ymblanter. I also went back and added the admin backlog tag where you put it. Cheers. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oops! I clearly edited a previous version of that page without realizing. Thanks for the fix! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Ral539/Lar409 back again?
Hi Salvidrim!,
Kub8615 (talk · contribs) undid my revert earlier today on the Wario template. Checking their edits, I'm pretty sure it's the same person behind Ral539 and Lar409 once more. From the start, a whole bunch of edits concerning video game-related articles, and templates also. As far as I can tell they didn't do anything wrong just yet (well, except for revert the Wario template that is), so I don't know if a block or something is in order right away. Kind regards, --Soetermans. T / C 14:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even if they did nothing wrong, it's block evasion. Please open the SPI if you have the time as I'm busy at work, otherwise I'll file it later today. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at those edits, I'd probably block him per WP:DUCK. But I don't want to step on your two's toes, if you want to go through the full process, its fine. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, no, go right ahead! --Soetermans. T / C 21:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd wait until there's a bit more evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, I've given him a warning about edit warring on his talk page. Even if its not him, he's being disruptive with reverting changes over a bunch of templates. (Though, I think it is him, as this was exactly his thing, and he's even restored a change or two of Ral/Lars.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, like this edit, which Lar also did in December. With this edit, they again went for unexplained removal of sourced content. --Soetermans. T / C 10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, I've given him a warning about edit warring on his talk page. Even if its not him, he's being disruptive with reverting changes over a bunch of templates. (Though, I think it is him, as this was exactly his thing, and he's even restored a change or two of Ral/Lars.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd wait until there's a bit more evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, no, go right ahead! --Soetermans. T / C 21:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at those edits, I'd probably block him per WP:DUCK. But I don't want to step on your two's toes, if you want to go through the full process, its fine. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, changing templates as they see fit. --Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dropping series title for no reason. (thanks, @Favre1fan93:). --Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here's another from the Assassin's Creed page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not home (thank God for free restaurant Wi-Fi!) so I'll let @Sergecross73: do the honors. MobileSalv 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here's another from the Assassin's Creed page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the history of all of this, but just wanted to let you know that the same edit occurred again on Assassin's Creed by Bef92834234. Wanted both of you to be aware if this is an ongoing problem you're involved in. @Soetermans and Sergecross73: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, Favre. My first thought when seeing that username was "Ral again?", but this time there were a lot of numbers and I let it go. I guess you're right, with these new edits it really looks like the same person again and again. Is there a way to keep them away from registering, by an IP address or something? --Soetermans. T / C 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- You could request an SPI investigation, and see where that goes. I think that is the option you may be looking for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Questionable links
here are the links that i'm not so sure of. their archived and the originals don't exist: [1][2][3][4][5]
This one is from Japan, so it might not be considered the same, but who knows: [6]
Thanks for helping. Appreciate it.Lucia Black (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is this considered urgent? I might find time tommorow, otherwise not before Saturday. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- No its not considered urgent.Lucia Black (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- All 5 are the "database entries" people were saying are unusuable. Actual articles are fine, but this stuff just originates from Gamefaqs I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK thanks. i'm going to have to look for other sources then.Lucia Black (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try to do some research too tommorow if I can... I've played over half these games... :P {SalvMobile} 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.102.132 (talk)
- OK thanks. i'm going to have to look for other sources then.Lucia Black (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- All 5 are the "database entries" people were saying are unusuable. Actual articles are fine, but this stuff just originates from Gamefaqs I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- No its not considered urgent.Lucia Black (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Release information
Do you have reliably sourced release dates for Pokémon Channel? I really need one for Europe, as something specific to the European release is mentioned in the prose. Tezero (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's currently sourced to PEGI's own databse; is that not considered reliable? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, my bad. But the American and Japanese release dates are still sourced to GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yea, the review's reliable for critical commentary but not the actual release info because of the GFAQs shared DB. A lot of shit is blocked from my office PC and I can't be bothered to bypass the firewall for something so mundane and I might not be home until Saturday, but I'll see if I can have some time loose tonight; otherwise I'll look into it this weekend at the latest (along with the above thread's request). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, my bad. But the American and Japanese release dates are still sourced to GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
NYCSlover again?
I have a strong suspicion that NYCSlover is back on List of Nintendo GameCube games. But this time as an IP, what makes it rather difficult for me to get proper evidence. See the history for the present series of edits. What do you think? The Banner talk 01:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Seems obvious to me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
User talk page protection
Bonjour, je veux bien une protection sur ma page de discussion à cause du pénible Sulandav, mon activité étant très faible ici ça ne sera pas gênant, 1 mois devrait suffir. Merci. Akeron (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Bonne chance avec le troll... :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thanks for your quick response and helping out clearing the backlog at UAA! Job well done :) Best. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC) |
Sorry... C'est très bien :)). Sir Lothar (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hehe, no worries! It's just me who can't stand this stuff. #OCD ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong and Rozen Maiden
Starting off, I know Ryulong is an aggressive editor, and is why I purposely avoid him whenever possible; but he has walked into an article I frequent. Recently, he has gone on a campaign to remove a template called Nihongo foot (TFD). As part of his campaign, he has decided to remove the template from all media at Rozen Maiden (dif), followed by deleting the character section to remove the rest of template which he justifies by restoring List of Rozen Maiden characters while leaving out the updated character content on the main article (dif); the list also received a consensus to redirect in January 2014 from two and a half editors.
From past experience, opposing Ryulong's absolute authority is futile as reverting would lead to some war, and am considering if an RFC or ANI is an appropriate action. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- What do you expect of me? I understand the situation but your do not present me a specific request for help or anything. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Should this be taken to ANI or go for an RFC? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have you discussed on the talk page much? He's aggressive, but he does usually concede to consensus. So, probably that/RFC first, then ANI if he acts against consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you realize it's already on AN/I? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't, though I should have guessed, it seems someone reports him there every other week. Oh well, I suppose it's up to DZ on whether he wants to start an RFC or join in at ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think I will start an RFC, since it doesn't seem related to the MoS there. Thanks anyways. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't, though I should have guessed, it seems someone reports him there every other week. Oh well, I suppose it's up to DZ on whether he wants to start an RFC or join in at ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you realize it's already on AN/I? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have you discussed on the talk page much? He's aggressive, but he does usually concede to consensus. So, probably that/RFC first, then ANI if he acts against consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Should this be taken to ANI or go for an RFC? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Request for action
Tparis said to bring this to an admin familiar with this, so I'll report it to you. I believe Lucia Black's interaction ban is still in effect and it didn't even take 24 hours from my first re-entry into the topic space for her to already follow my edits and act inappropriately by altering the flow of content in relation to another issue she has with Ryulong and DragonZero (which you are aware of - hence why I chose you). Every time I do anything, Lucia Black promptly shows up to mess with whatever I am working on. There is no valid reason for this edit, a mere 4 hours after my first return to A&M space in a long time. [8] The edit itself is actually wrong to begin with - the swap was not even in line with the "primary or original work". Lucia Black's long pattern of disruption and gaming the system is intolerable and I think the "last chance"s for her repeatedly bad behavior should have run out long ago. Just looking over the recent days shows she's violated 3RR and begun fighting with Ryulong and DragonZero (a wonderful content contributor) and she's disruptively attempted to push the envelope and that other issue by flipping other pages in a really pointy and gamey way. She should know that her edit is inappropriate and disruptive. Enough is enough - I take a break for 2 months and within 4 hours of returning it is none other than Lucia Black who is pushing the iban and hounding me. I want action on this because the last time she broke the Iban and I took a break so that she would stop this constant messing with my work. I want her blocked for this - its deliberate and its purposeful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Chris, but I am not willing to involve myself with this and offer assistance to either you or Lucia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Angry Administrators
Category:Angry Administrators, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hehehe... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why?
Why do you hate jon? he is our lord and savior, and you destroyed his likeness. You have not yet felt the wrath of hell until today. The followers of jafarism will have you on a silver platter.Beatmaster38 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's no use. Ech! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am wrong...
... I suspect NYCSlover to be back, this times as an IP. The IP ticks al the boxes: a massive edit on Nintendo GameCube and contributions on familiar places. This quacks like a Chinese duck farm. The Banner talk 23:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)