Jump to content

User talk:Salvidrim!/Q1 2018 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


UTRS on Portuguese Wikipedia

Hello, Salvidrim!

I still would like to finnish that. I would like to bring it to pt.wikipedia Village Pump, so we can have a final decision there. We had some opinions from local sysops and I believe that from our side it only needs community confirmation.
If there is no problem, I am starting a discussion there, but please confirm to me that, if we get local consensus, this change can be made. Kind regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 05:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • It's certainly possible but clearly requires a bit more integration work from the English UTRS developer, DeltaQuad, who is extremely busy with other matters (Arbitration Committee and other things) these days. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Teles, I definitely want to get around to accommodating you for the ptwiki. The sad part is, I need time or more developers. There will be an eventual translation needed from you guys, but that's not ready yet. I'll post to our bot operators' board in the next few days to see if I can garner any help to get things rolling along for you guys. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad and Salvidrim!: Thanks. I think translating is not a problem as I can do it myself. The old way of using a list is clearly not working anymore and the possible solution is using UTRS. I understand you are busy with other things and will be waiting for you guys. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Nikolaos-throuvis

Clearing old unblock requests, and came across User talk:Nikolaos-throuvis. He says all the right things in his unblock request; any objection to unblocking per WP:ROPE? --Jayron32 20:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Jayron32 no objections, account was blocked after UAA report because it was named Hnfc and was promoting "The Hellenic Network of Fitness Certifications (HNFC)" (diff), so if the user has been renamed and seems to understand promo issues then you can proceed as you see fit. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


This has to be a misunderstanding

Do I understand correctly from your disclosure on User:Salvidrim! (paid) that you've been paid by a banned editor, User:MisterWiki, to proxy edit for him? Surely not... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've clarified the disclosure. FWIW, MisterWiki is a zero-edit account that was renamed 7½ years ago to Diego Grez-Cañete and banned two years ago for problematic behaviour entirely unrelated to paid editing. http://MisterWiki.com is a firm created last summer and as far as I can see is entirely unrelated. The name resemblance is unfortunate but hardly implausible, it is such a generic name! There exist Twitter and Twitch accounts and everything seems unrelated. Some days I'm very glad I picked a completely made up pseudonym fifteen years ago, that way I'm sure nobody else anywhere is using "Salvidrim" ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. Something about this setup still makes me vaguely queasy, but I don't have the background knowledge or time to follow up, at least not right now (and I doubt "Floq's queasiness" is a valid criterion for something being within/outside policy). I assume this means one or more of the major contributors to Studio71 are undisclosed paid editors, though. I'd be careful trying to get their edits added to the article main space history at Studio 71. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it is not an unreasonable assumption but the bottom line is that I simply do not know. While I wish to encourage companies and article subjects to edit through experienced editors instead of marketing staff or PR firms in general, it is an absolute necessity that it be disclosed properly a a paid edit, and I would never work with anyone whom I know engages (or asks me for) undisclosed paid editing, nor turn a blind eye to it. FWIW, lemme also say on the record that I also decline to perform any paid edit request which I do not believe meets our policy and instead offer counseling and advice as to why they should not seek it being done (a recent example was a label wishing an artist's genre be changed, despite multiple reliable sources). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Why do you ask? By "that website" you mean MisterWiki? Jacob's identity is now well known and public. See JacobMW. He's a 19 years old PR guy working in the music industry (mostly). Jytdog has actually had a phone conversation with Jacob already. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Because I am a very very curious person potato. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Although stating this is probably not going to mean much for anyone, I did do some research before associating with MisterWiki, both in getting to know Jacob and in validating with other contractors and clients. I'm naturally suspicious of online people in general and am used to looking past the facades of webpages; there is little I hate more than dealing with unidentifiable, unknown parties. I'm not an anti-privacy advocate for nothing... :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar

Hi Salvidrim - this was quite a contentious deletion discussion, so I was a bit surprised to see it closed (twice in one day) with no discussion from the closer. Would you consider adding a rationale to the closing note, explaining how you came to your decision? Thanks Pburka (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done! It wasn't closed lightly. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Ben, for taking on the difficult task of closing that debate. For my own part, I am content that the RfC's conclusion was upheld as important. I am also pleased that the article now has at least a couple of secondary sources, which I couldn't find. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You're most welcome. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP... but sometimes it is. ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
Thanks. It's appreciated. Pburka (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a passing note of thanks...

...for your very thoughtful expoundment. Let's make it a word. Closes like yours are extremely helpful to my understanding of the various perspectives and evaluative thought processes that fuel the WP engine. I just wanted to briefly explain why I cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY & did so without explanation: I have been criticized in the past for reciting policy to veteran editors and admins, and told they don't appreciate having policy recited to them. confused face icon Just curious...if I had demonstrated which portion of the policy to which I referred, would it have made a difference in the outcome? My lede comment stated "I exist therefore I'm notable argument fails GNG" which I believed was already adequately explained in the VP RfC. I thought that simply citing the relative policy that supported my position would be adequate - specifically that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. If policy unambiguously states that WP is not a directory of everything simply because it exists or has existed, it would drive home the point. You didn't think so, and apparently needed something more. That's the part I'm not quite understanding. My discussion here is not for any other reason than to obtain a better understanding of the outcome and to improve my presentations in future debates. Atsme📞📧 01:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just my opinion and I don't pretend to possess ultimate wisdom or truth, but I think what is most useful at AfD is not so much mentioning what policy you think supports the exclusion or inclusion of an article, but describing how the article meets (or doesn't meet) said policy. Which is to say, how or why do you think this school meets the WP:NOTDIRECTORY criteria for exclusion? Comparing specific points of the policy against specific elements of the article. Stuff like that. I mean, I didn't intend to imply your argument was wrong or you were somehow bearing the blame of some inadequacy is presenting your position, I just meant that more specific expoundment of how and why you hold this opinion is definitely helpful when assessing the strength and weight or arguments (both for closers and for future readers who might be considering a new AfD and such). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
As for whether the result may have been different if you had presented a more detailed analysis of the article with regards to WP:NOTDIRECTORY.... let's be honest here, there's no way a 7k/3d AfD can be closed with consensus to delete when all commenters are experienced (ie excluding trolls, SPAs, meat, etc.) unless you have exceedingly shitty "keeps" and fabulous "deletes", which wasn't the case here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Understood - I think you did an amazing job. Thank you for explaining it to me. Sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees & your explanation hit home. :-) Atsme📞📧 01:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--Gee! That was one of the best-drafted closes, I have ever observed, post the school-RFC.The line:--However, closing an AfD as delete when there are twice as many !votes for keeping as deleting, regardless of the relative strengths of arguments is practically unjustifiable---you've hit the nail on the head:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • One more, that was beautiful. Sorry about the hair shirt you are wearing on your main user page. (Possibly justified, mind, but, gosh, you're suffering a lot of pain. You seem to be our local version of Al Franken.) When/if you need to reapply for adminship, I'll support you based partly on that close. --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment and moral support -- but... maybe... don't compare my situation to a sexual predator? heh XD Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI clerking

Hi, Salvidrim!. I've moved you from the active SPI clerk list to temporarily inactive. This is based on a discussion of the functionaries. The action is not intended to be punitive; nor is it an action by ArbCom. After your arbitration case has concluded, the functionaries will again discuss what your status should be at SPI and, if appropriate and in conformance with your wishes, move you back to active status. In the meantime, please refrain from any clerking at SPI. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Ben

Your self-criticism on your user page is completely on-point; the only thing you didn't do that you should have was resign tools when the case opened, since the result is a foredrawn conclusion and there is no sense being emotionally beat up for five weeks over such things. I'd encourage you to resign tools, even at this late date, to have a great Christmas and New Year's, and to come back strong as an editor in 2018. There's really no benefit to the project with you burning yourself out fighting against inevitable forces of nature; nor should your value as a Wikipedian be measured as to whether you are holding an Admin flag or not — that shit ultimately matters NOT AT ALL to the real purpose of WP, which is creating a massive and reliable encyclopedia.

So stand down, stop beating yourself up, stop being beat up by others, and start again refreshed and free. Best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But at this point wouldn't a sudden resignation basically short-circuit the well-underway proceedings? Seems disrespectful of the time and thoughtspace people have already expended on the ArbCom case and I feel it makes me look even worse -- like the guy hanging himelf in his cell just before the guilty verdict falls. Plus, at this poing a resignation under a cloud or a desysopping would be functionally the same. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The execution metaphor is apt for the current process. Or, more healthily: this is a game of chess in which the result is already clear and has been for some time. So resign the game and go read a book rather than give your opponent the satisfaction of slowly removing every piece, while those watching the game taunt. The result is the result is the result. Anyway, all the best for the coming year and don't take any of this stuff too seriously — it is tangential. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The chess metaphor is more apt than you know, as I've often been accused of not forfeiting when the outcome is apparently clear, holding on to some self-deluded hope of things working out. Perhaps it's a slightly narcissistic trait of difficulty admitting defeat (IANApsychiatrist)? Heh. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that indicates the result is a foredrawn (sic) conclusion. The arbitrators seem to be doing what they need to sort the good criticisms from the bad (and there are many bad in the case). I do agree that Salvidrim! should not have such a sad looking user page. Don't beat yourself up as much! --Izno (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
"Foredrawn" is a perfectly fine word at 4:45 am, or at least it should be. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's on Wikitionary, surely it must be fine? wikt:foredrawn :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Editing at 5 in the morning does not generally lead to superb English. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I just scored a nice used set of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary for almost free off eBay, let's settle this once and for all! Not expressly listed as a word (v. 1, pp. 999-1000), but it seems to be implicitly okay as the prefix "fore—" is said to "[form] verbs and their derivatives in senses 'before, in front,' as forecast [and] foreordain." So it is a made up word, but a grammatically okay made up word, in my estimation. Or you can substitute "foreordained," if that strikes your fancy, which is a prettier term anyway... Carrite (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Meh, foredrawn sounds less pompous than foreordained. Both are documented on Wiktionary as grammatically valid constructions anyways so we're not the first to think of them apparently. If I was the one who put your above thoughts into words I might used the adjective "inevitable" instead, because I'm just a wikt:basic bitch like that. ;D Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Final scene in Wonderland

This is always appropriate in these situations...

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

"Who cares for you?" said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

Carrite (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That demanded illustration (inserted above).—Odysseus1479 08:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Edit Request template

Moved to Template talk:Request edit § Pending requests number is incorrect
 – Spintendo ᔦᔭ 05:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Recently, you made a change to your Dashboard. The result of this change is that you now appear in this list at the very bottom under "Pages included". Your appearance in that list has increased the number of EDIT Req's that display in the COI edit req template, so that it now reads 1 pending request more than it should. The template draws from that list, what number to display. Before your change to the Dashboard, the number had been perpetually stuck at 3 pending (when in fact there are none pending) which shows that in addition to you, there are 3 other rogue templates lurking out there. With the pending edit request backlog at around 100+ just a few weeks ago, these rogue templates were easily hidden, and it was impossible to notice that the count was off. But now that the list is down to zero requests, the rogues stand out. This is something I've been trying to figure out how to fix. I was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction as to who might be able to make a change so that the correct number of pending requests displays in the request template. Thank you for any help you can provide. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 04:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Spintendo: Fixed — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, all that for a forgotten colon. Sorry Spintendo! :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alone Together (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Five years of adminship

Pretty much to the exact date. Maybe the forced break will turn out benefecial. Don't mourn or lament the outcome. And don't ask me to run for RfA right away -- I'm taking 2018 off of any responsibility beyond that of a mere editor. Maybe I let the power get to me. Maybe I am the stereotypical neckbeard manchild power-abuser that some think most admins are. I think I lost sight of what I valued in Wikipedia and got so used to wearing the admin badge that I forgot its weight. Anyhow, going to bed now, and back to regular programming Monday. Sorry y'all :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I always say "going to bed" to try to con myself into logging off, and find myself still editing "one last thing" almost an hour later. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry it turned out this way. I thank you for all the good things you contributed as an admin these last 5 years (I didn't realize you became an admin that close to me, as I'm currently at 5yrs and 1.5 ,months.) I hope whatever you choose to do going forward, you do things that make you happy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What Sergecross73 said. I was first cab off the rank on the desysop motion so feel free to tell me to get lost; but despite the outcome of the case I hope it was clear that you remain a valued editor and I hope you'll stick around. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Adding my regrets and my thanks for your service as an admin, hoping to still see you around a lot. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You made some mistakes, but I'd like to think that you still had the best interests of the project at heart. Thank you for the good that you've done here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes from me. Looking forward to still seeing you around. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I should go to bed, and probably not comment at all, as someone who'd never want to become an admin: there are so many things you can do here: welcoming newbies, show them around, review, - you are precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

I hate removing admin bits from people, no matter the reason. You've worked hard in a number of roles and no matter what you may have been judged to have fallen down on, you deserve thanks for the countless good things you've done along the way. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work as an administrator. I still regard you as a reliable and helpful editor. The Banner talk 14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it all happened. I would encourage you to do an RfA in 12-24 months. We're all learning as we go along. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

EFM

Hi Salvidrim!, follow up to the BN thread, but didn't want to drag others in to it, do you still have need for the edit filter manager flag? It does not appear you have ever used it. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, hm, indeed I think I only ever used it to consult existing EFs (being the regex neophyte I am), since well before EFH was an option. What do you think? Replace EFM with EFH? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any trouble with that.  Done — xaosflux Talk 14:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

This arbitration case, for which you were named as a party, has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Please note the following remedies involve yourself:

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Liam Jenkins

Hi Salvidrim, you reverted the PROD on Liam Jenkins as 'not eligible for PROD (previous AfD exists)'. But, as seen from the deletion discussion, the previous AfD was about a different person with the same name that existed before this current article. So any objection if I put the PROD back in? Boneymau (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked in the deletion log and previous (up to 2005) versions were also for an artist named Liam Jenkins from Melbourne, Australia... although the current 1996-born subject would've been 10 at beast and there's no mention of playing the oboe or of "gross-out websites and self-published books" in the current article. I'm no longer admin so I can't compare the AfD'ed version to the current article so I can't definitively say whether the AfD'ed version was about the same subject as the current article, but I think it's likely that they're different, so you can go ahead and revert my PROD removal (feel free to diff my statement here int he summary) :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Network Operators Consortium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My edit on "‪List of video games featuring Mario"

My edit on "‪List of video games featuring Mario"
You're very welcome for the edit. MapleTreeXZ (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
:) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Gianmaria Pezzato

Yeah, I agree I probably should have redirected this.... however imo the target page is probably not long for this world.TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering that (1) it was released yesterday and has a ton of media coverage both now and back when the trailer dropped and Warner Bros. allowed it, and (2) it was already kept at AfD... I doubt it'll get deleted. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
You obviously do your homework more thoroughly than I do!TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly no big deal either way. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Konstantin Shumov

Problem is, that link doesn't include Konstantin Shumov. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the deadlink to add the archived version. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Bravo Page

Hello Salvidrim, nice to hear from you. I understand your concerns but I'm quite new here and wanted a challenge, so I found a page to "neutralise" just to see if it was something I could get my teeth into. I realise now that this company seems to have had lots of issues so I've probably chosen too big a bonfire to walk into... However, all links were found using google. I'm pretty sure it no longer reads as an advert?

I work as an artist and am getting involved with Wikipedia editing because I'm working on a project where experience in an online community as an outsider is part of my research so please be gentle with me! I normally work on community art projects in the UK but am planning to make a worldwide digital collaborative project over the next couple of years... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Petley (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter Knight (musician)

As for Peter Knight I'm just a fan. My brother introduced me to his stuff when I was considering moving to Australia many years ago (when I was more active in sound art). It bothered me for years that he didn't have a page on Wikipedia, so since I've taught myself how to code I thought I'd create his page as my first major project. Seriously, just a fan. I'm likely to make lots of pages for bands and artists who I don't think are properly represented on Wikipedia whenever I have a lag in my other jobs. Feel free to give me awkward projects to work on, I love a challenge and want to communicate with lots of people on here and keep improving my skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Petley (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to Sign

So sorry I forgot to sign those last two messages, my apologies Dan Petley (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello! I have replied back to your message on my talk page. Thank you! MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded there. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

First article

Salvidrim, I have done some research on your userpage and you seem to be a rather experienced editor on Wikipedia. Either today or next weekend, I want to begin working on my first article submission to submit through the Articles for Creation process as I was told to at the Wikipedia Teahouse. I have already read the 'Your First Article' article and now have a few ideas in mind, such as some local restaurants or technology products. What would be your advice? Thank you. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My advice would be to look at an existing article about a similar topic, how it is laid out, what templates and formating it uses, and use that as inspiration to build your new article. Make sure you have a few references that constitute "significant coverage" (not a passing mention or coverage of a related topic but in-depth about the topic you're writing), and that are in independent reliable sources (not press releases, interviews, blogs, etc.) Although I currently can't formally review drafts, please don't hesitate to let me know once you've drafted the article and I can give some more specific advice if you want, especially about formatting and wikifying. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll let you know when I have something ready. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

By the by

I don't think I had occasion to say it, but I'm glad to see you've stuck around after all the drama. A lot of other folks probably would have quit over it, and I'm glad you didn't, for whatever that's worth. GMGtalk 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Sogetel

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Sogetel, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Doprendek (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Doprendek If you wanna claim the article subject meets the criteria for inclusion, you could at least back your argument up by adding a few sources. The article is currently unsourced (discounting WP:PRIMARY). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak sourcing, not unsourced--WP:PRIMARY is a strong enough objection without this form of definition creep. Also please read PROD-DEPROD criteria, burden of proof is yours, I don't have to re-write article yet (or ever, though I plan to) to stop you from obliterating this article tomorrow, AfD is normal process. What is your rush? And why avoid discussion? All articles start somewhere. Here is an article about a contract for English-language schools in Greater Montreal https://www.lecourriersud.com/gros-contrat-sogetel/ but it takes time to REWRITE an article and you were going to delete this in a matter or hours, making it all but impossible to bring back. Doprendek (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Previous PROD on KWordQuiz

Hello

You are claiming that KWordQuiz has been subject of a previously contested PROD.

I have checked every single revision of KWordQuiz (which aren't many). I see no such evidence.

I am not here asking for an explanation. Whatever gadget you are using to spot previous PROD is clearly giving you invalid results. This article, in its current state, has never been the subject of a previously rejected PROD.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted on your talkpage while ou were typing this. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh and in case you or any other (talk page watcher) is wondering, I use this WP:DBR to spot PRODed articles potentially ineligible for PRODing: Wikipedia:Database reports/PRODed articles with deletion logs. ^_^ Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Light Mix

Bonsoir Il me semble que j'ai discuté avec toi il y a quelques temps et que tu es aussi francophone. Je cherche un peu d'aide, donc je tente mas chance. Par hasard, saurais-tu ce qu'est un "light mix" album, ou un "light mix score" ? Je me demande si c'est simpelment une "bande-son ou un album ayant été légèrement remixé", ou pas. Mais je cherche une traduction plus précise en français, mais je ne trouve. Très cordialement. Sorry for disturbing. regards. --Archimëa (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Archimëa Aurais-tu quelques exemples d'albums étiquetés "light mix"? L'info la plus détaillée que j'ai trouvée c'est au sujet des prix décernés par la NAVGTR qui classifient les bandes sonores sous les catégories "light mix" ou "dramatique" (ref: https://twitter.com/navgtr/status/864916474993029121). Cependant quand je regarde la liste de nominés/vainqueurs de chaque catégorie je connais la grande majorité des jeux mais la ligne tracée entre "dramatique" et "light mix" ne semble pas intuitivement cohérente pour moi. Dans tous les cas cependants, pour ce qui est des prix de la NAVGTR, "light mix" n'a rien à voir avec "légèrement remixé" mais plutôt comme un genre ou style musical antonyme à "dramatique". J'ai shooté un tweet à NAVGTR pour voir si ils étaient en mesure d'expliquer plus en détail (https://twitter.com/Salvidrim/status/968619088074493952). Selon moi, même en français il sera préférable d'utiliser l'appellation "light mix", en partie parce que les genres sont souvent intraduisibles (ex.: fr:Heavy metal) mais aussi (si ou parle bien du prix) parce que c'est la seule appellation "officielle" de la NAVGTR et une traduction incluerait automatiquement une partie d'opinion ou préférence de la part du traducteur. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Bonsoir. Merci pour l'aide. C'est en effet pour un jeu récemment nommé aux NAVGTR awards et c'est bien ce contexte qui m'intéresse. Merci pour cette aide précieuse, inaccessible pour quelqu'un de seulement francophone.
J'avais trouvé quelques liens via google (divers et variés :/) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
J'aurai pu y penser que cela s'opposait à l'autre catégorie, mais cela n'est pas venu !!
J'ai bien sûr utilisé light mix sur l'article fr. J'attends au moins de voir si tu arrives à glaner des infos via Twitter. --Archimëa (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Pas de problème, je te "ping" si j'ai des nouvelles. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

;OUTSTANDING DRAMATIC SCORE Dramatic scores tend to have full orchestration, somber or yearning or powerful or triumphant. Music accompanied by the spoken word/language of a modern culture or society, real or fictitious, is considered a song and therefore not eligible as music. However, original music with ancient Latin or similar vocals is eligible, because the vocals do not function as words in all practicality.

OUTSTANDING LIGHT MIX SCORE

A light mix is a lighter mood, often comedy or cartoony or rock and roll.

OUTSTANDING ORIGINAL OR ADAPTED SONG

For the music and lyrics of an original song or substantially altered song that, in its game form, has not been previously produced or published.

OUTSTANDING SONG COLLECTION

For the recognition of song collections that appear in a game and have a significant impact on the overall enjoyment, mood, or experience.

OUTSTANDING SOUND EDITING IN A GAME CINEMA

For outstanding achievement in editing sound to picture in a non-playable portion of a game, where the player is unable to generate sound or manipulate its timing.

OUTSTANDING SOUND EFFECTS

For outstanding achievement in the depiction of natural or artificial sounds, particularly ambient sound that can not be manipulated.

OUTSTANDING USE OF SOUND

For outstanding achievement in the programming, timing, and layering of sound elements, including the dramatic use of silence.

Fais-moi signe si tu as besoin d'une traduction plus poussée que celle de Google Translate. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Bonjour. Bravo pour ce travail.
Je suis pas contre quelques conseils !
Je pense garder "light mix" en rajoutant probablement "(musique non-dramatique)". C'est pas l'idéal de définir quelque chose par ce qu'il n'est pas mais là, je ne peux pas mettre "musiques légère (ou sérieuse), comiques, de dessin animé ou r&r". --Archimëa (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"Musique légère" et "musique dramatique" me semblent cohérents? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah oui, autant "musique dramatique" est largement usité, je ne connaissais pas bien "musique légère" dont je viens de voir la définition. Très bien alors.
Merci pour ton aide... --Archimëa (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark

Could you explain your reasoning on this? There are some issues about this deletion and others related to it, and frankly, it comes across to me as a supervote. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you linking to the right AfD? You say you have "issues about this deletion" but there was no deletion... If this is the right AfD, here are some more thoughts: although vote-counting is not the point of AfD, quantity is not a negligible factor, and there is practically no way an AfD with twice as many people arguing to keep than to delete can be closed as consensus to delete (barring of course socking, SPAs, and other trolling, of which there was none in this case). I can't stop you from taking it to WP:DRV but I think at best this could be stretched into a "no consensus" reclosure if some read the delete arguments as overwhelmingly more cogent than the arguments to keep, which does not seem likely. That's not saying that "you're wrong" or that "WP:GEOFEAT is worthless", but clearly multiple editors who have evaluted the article subject against the WP:GEOFEAT guideline still opined to keep and the consensus to keep seemed unambiguous. That being said, I think a renomination with a more detailed rationale of how and why the article subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT is not necessarily a bad idea. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Here's my problem: we got one person saying that, yes, cemeteries do inherit notability from burials, which seems to me to directly contradict policy; one saying "no issues that I can see", which I wouldn't count as an argument; another saying to merge it; another simply implying that it could be improved; and the last claiming notability "as described above", but except for the inheritance argument, there wasn't any claim other than "well, it's old." I just don't see how any of the these arguments pans out, either together or separately. Mangoe (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand your disagreement with the editors who presented opinions to keep. Differences of opinion are the entire reason why AfD exist. You seem to be seeking an overturn of the closure to "no consensus" at I don't think that would achieve anything meaningful. As I've said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea for a new AfD with a better laid-out deletion rationale. Please understand that it's difficult to covince people to rally with your point of view when your entire nom is a one-sentence "it's not notable". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Hey there, as I know you're potting about, I thought I'd run this past you. As you know, I just created Category:Nuon game covers, and placed File:Freefall 3050 AD boxart.jpg into it without any problems. However, I also created Category:RCA Studio II game covers in the exact same way, and placed File:1977 Baseball Video Game Cover Art.jpg into it in the exact same way, but for some reason, the category is showing up as empty even after purging the various pages. Any ideas? Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too terribly experienced with categories, so I don't really know much more than what can be found at Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#Why might a category list not be up to date? unfortunately Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that, which is about the extent of my knowledge as well, although I've created a good few categories over the years and never had this problem. Not to worry, if it doesn't show up soon, I'll ask at the video game project talk page. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited François Couturier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Move request

Hi. Just wanted to ask if you could move Unreal Tournament (video game) to Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)? It originally was named like this, but an editor decided to remove the "upcoming" part even though the game is still under development. Per infobox documentation, we don't count pre-alpha, early access and others as proper releases, so it wouldn't be appropiate to consider its 2014 launch as official. Hakken (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)  Done @Hakken: This shouldn't be at (video game) anyways, but at (20xx video game). Without an official release we can't do that though. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ferret beat me to it. Probably better too since he has a full set of admin tools :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!. Hakken (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvidrim!/Q1_2018_Archive&oldid=1074911686"