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

I just saw this and thought, in case you didn't see it, you should be aware of this. [1]. GamerPro64 01:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's all good, AND taken care within minutes. I got a few Twitter mentions and was wondering what the fuss was about. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear. Actually surprised me that not only is someone I'm following on Twitter is commenting on Twitter, but I know the user involved. Just looking out. GamerPro64 01:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to protect your User page as well, since it's already getting vandalized. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone ought to tell ol' JT not to "kill the messenger" - all you did was act on a decision made by others. Anyone else would have acted the same with the consensus you had in front of you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• shrugs* That G4 was premature, should've let the AfD run its course. Now it's probably gonna be kept. No big deal. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he was just mad about the AFD itself. Still, I dont think you were wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I was wrong, but I think it can be legitimately objected. And I'm pretty sure Jon doesn't know much about WP's deletion policies, he just realized his article was gone. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the discussion itself... it appears that most of the rationale for keep are all the same ("He's popular and has millions of subscribers"), but IagoQnsi has countered nearly every one. Most of them have never edited before and will probably never come back. What are the next steps in a discussion like this? Is it worth giving more visibility to more established editors in the VG Project? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think so. I started a discussion at WP:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (3rd nomination)

The JonTron (Jon Jafari) has been remade again, and it's been nominated for deletion again. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you telling me this like I don't already know? I personally restored it and AfD'ed it yesterday, and discussed it in the section right above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, my main question is this: Since this page has been remade several times already by his fans, and nothing has changed in terms of new sources, is it possible that some kind of protection placed on creating a new Jon Jafari or JonTron article? If there are new reliable sources, then I'm fine. However, if it's just fans remaking a page to counter a deletion discussion, while providing no new sources, then that could be problematic. They may simply do it again. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it is deleted again, I'll salt it. (Unless Salv objects or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been AfD'ed once, recreated and improved for the better part of a year, prematurely CSD'ed, then recreated and AfD'ed. This is far from any level of "persistent recreation of deleted material" that I would consider to require salt'ing. To say that "nothing has changed in term of sources" is false when comparing the version deleted at AfD in 2013 and the current version. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I haven't really salted many/any articles before I don't think, so I wasn't sure what the tolerance was for "number of recreations". Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please re-activate my User:FactStraight account and its history, as discussed since that has always been my primary and heavily used account, as the user histories of both accounts document. The fact that PlayCuz is older is far less important than the fact that it has never been heavily used, whereas until recently, FactStraight was used daily. If this can only be done by blocking the PlayCuz account, that is acceptable. Thank you. PlayCuz (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied and processed at User talk:FactStraight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim!,

How's things? I have a question, for a while now I've been watching Halokid12, a problematic user in my eyes (see their edits). They add a lot of unsourced information, often unconstructive. I've tried to get through to them, but to no avail. I reported them to AIV, but there was no response. SQGibbon (talk · contribs) might also have some thoughts on them. Could you maybe take a look? Kind regards, --Soetermans. T / C 11:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've also been watching Halokid12 for a good while now. While I don't think their edits are malicious, I do think there are some competency problems. They rarely edit war but also are not particularly communicative. I really don't know what the best course of action is. I hate to lose an enthusiastic editor but if they will not/cannot follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia then there might not be any other solution. SQGibbon (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that I haven't edited in 4 days should demonstrate eloquently how terribly busy I am these days. I'm really sorry, but I can't make time to assist with this right now. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can help. Looks like he's been giving a "last warning" in regards to unsourced information additions, and a ton of warnings prior to that. Let me know if he does it again. If he does, I'll give him a short block. Perhaps this will encourage him to take the warnings a little more seriously, or motivate him into reviewing policy a little better. Let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem Salv, thanks anyway. Thanks for your input, SQGibbon; I agree, it would be a shame to lose an editor. Serge, what do you think? Would it be fair to let them know we're discussing them right here? Or just see what happens next? --Soetermans. T / C 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's your call, either way is fine by me, Soetermans. I have no problem with him seeing this, but he's also been warned substantially, and what I'm recommended is extremely standard as far as Wikipedia policy and his warnings go, so I don't think it would be unfair if he didn't see it either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dude, why would you delete JonTron? He may not be a giant celebrity, but he still has nearly 1 million more followers than you. If having a webshow (not to mention Fred, Game Grumps, etc.) for a few years with a few hundred thousand (almost a million) subscribers isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then why would you allow anyone else to be? Do you not feel that Jon Jafari is not notable? He helped create Game Grumps, yet that page is still fully active on Wikipedia and should yet be treated as the same as JonTron. Egoraptor has a wiki page, and yet his page is left untouched, even though they share almost the same amount of popularity. Do you just have a giant ass stick up your ass? Riding around on your high horse? Do you have little penis syndrome? Deleting peoples pages to make your tiny penis feel full? By the way, you can feel free to report my account. I haven't used it in years.

(talk page stalker) Please refrain from personal attacks. If you read the results of the Afd, you would see the consensus was that JonTron is not covered by enough reliable sources to be considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Like that of every other single-purpose account there, your very argument for inclusion has been dismantled repeatedly by other editors over and over. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would agree with Thomas on this one. So basically, JonTron fails the WP:GNG due to no significant coverage in reliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete JonTron (see its deletion log. It was deleted then redirected to Game Grumps as the result of a community discussion. Egoraptor is also vastly more notable for the purpose of a well-referenced encyclopedic article. I do not currently have any sort of stick in my ass, I find no enjoyment in riding horses of any height, and my genitalia causes me no insecurity (but thanks for caring!). Anything else you wanna know, punk? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but skimming through that little rant, I literally read his comment as "Do you have little penis syndrome? Deleting peoples pages to make your tiny penis feel full? By the way, I haven't used [mine] in years. I guess it would have explained why he instantly wanted to start talking about penises. Anyways, as everyon else has said, there's any number of other people and policies to blame here instead of Salvidrim. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please restore the history of the following page: Hold 'Em (Windows) The page was previously deleted, but is now a redirect; as far as I am aware, redirects should generally not have their history removed from view. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I'm aware, Delete and Redirect is an acceptable outcome at AFD. Do you plan on attempting to expand it out to an article again or something? Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No (unless it first passes WP:DRV, of course). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The end result was delete, I think they just put a redirect in because it could be a plausible search term. If you don't need it for something, then it looks like this was the correct action to be taken... Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my request. I agree with the decision this administrator made at the time (regarding the outcome of the deletion discussion). However, now that the redirect exists, the situation is different and so the history should be restored. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of the article and its revisions was supported by consensus and will not be undone without consensus. I can e-mail you the latest deleted revision or userfy a version of it if you want the content temporarily to merge it into another article. The fact the title was later recreated as a plausible redirect does not negate the consensus for deletion of the content. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, a deletion decision only concerns the presence or absence of the page on Wikipedia and has no bearing whatsoever on the visibility of the history of that page. Furthermore, per what I previously stated, I have previously understood it to be (informal?) policy that redirects do not have their history removed from view (the content may be useful outside Wikipedia, for one thing). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want the history to be restored? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to have ready access to the entire history so that I can either use it to file a WP:DRV request or perhaps add some of the removed information to another article (Windows Ultimate Extras seems like a prime candidate for that, as it already discusses the subject of the deleted article to a limited extent). Note that merely providing the latest revision of the page isn't a complete substitute for having all of the revisions available. However, this request isn't just for my own use - I think the history should be accessible to all, including mere Wikipedia readers who might want to use the content elsewhere (and who would be exceedingly unlikely to file a request to have the history sent to them). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

But histories aren't available for any deleted articles typically, are they? This is a deletion we're truly talking about here, there just happened to have a redirect added on later, as a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

To both of you: do you really want me to go to WP:DRV with a request to merely restore the history and then later a separate request to restore the article (I'm not saying that I would necessarily do that, but it's definitely a possibility)? It seems quite silly to start a whole new discussion just for the former. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a bit silly to go through all the trouble just to make a couple dozen revisions visible under a redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care, I'm just establishing that nothing wrong was done, and that I personally wouldn't restore the history unless there was a point, like someone trying to recreate it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Nintendo Comics System.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Nintendo Comics Systems was just temporarily vandalized. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you around all the time, I just need to learn to spell! :) Feel free to misspell my name anytime as fair recompense. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol don't worry about it, my name gets misspelt all the time. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

...sorry... ;) Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I always write YOUR name as SergeCross73. I'm so used to writing in CamelCase all day that it comes naturally. You should really make that a redirect to your userpage. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Another "Kevin"-name on List of PlayStation 2 games introducing loads (161) of links to disambiguation pages. First edits are from a few days ago, but for the rest he fits in perfectly as a NYCSlover-sockpuppet. Could you send "Kevinnan" home? The Banner talk 09:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could provide a warning for his tone and provide comment on the sourcing situation. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No to the first point, because it's a perfect waste of my time, yours, and Niemti's. Do you seriously think that after this umpteenth warning, Niemti will suddenly realize that their attitude is sometimes problematic and they'll start playing nice? Don't be delusional.

As for the sourcing issue, I'm afraid I have neither the time, the expertise nor the will to assist with this, but it is something that can be discussed at WP:VG/S if you desire input from the community. But a discussion about sources and a discussion about a user are two entirely different things and I trust you to be able to use your judgement in picking your fights wisely. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and there is NYCSlover again, this time as Kevbrook. And he is circumventing the semi-protection by letting his aliases to ripen a bit. This one was made 6 May. The Banner talk 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir, please do not move Nepal Bhasa to Newari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.171.18 (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the original AfD but this new article seems to be again about the modern revival and not the historical order, hence falling under WP:G4. Loriendrew, thoughts? Zeus^u|c 03:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ. After further review of deleted revisions of the previous article, I decided to endorse and process the G4 request; I hadn't realized the 1939 date WAS the revival, I thought that was the "historical" part, while it's a 12th century thing. Thanks for your vigilance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I was definitely confused at first too. No problem. Zeus^u|c 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• If Indian Standard Time is more commonly used in English, why would you bother to move it to India Standard Time. There was no clear consensus on a move, I believe that you should revert this back and re-list it for more consensus. Thanks. Gsingh (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I never said "Indian Standard Time" was more commonly used in English. Google results should not be a deciding factor in any discussion, and almost the entirety of your argument rested on them. The other sources presented that used "India Standard Time" far outweighed your Google results. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. I showed that on Google, Google News, Google Books it was more popular, the majority of English news articles also referred to it as Indian Standard Time. Please be more specific in which news article's outweighed mine? Your edit summary also indicated that you agreed that Indian Standard Time so I'm not sure what made you move the article. We clearly use the most commonly used as the article name. Gsingh (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of India Standard Time. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Sorry, I've filed a move review, just wanted you to know. Gsingh (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I probably should have talked to the closing and deleting admin, User:King of Hearts before recreating. I forgot to do that. I think the article really ought to exist now per User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Ruby Yadav - May 2014. I'll let you or User:King of Hearts decide how to proceed. Best wishes and sorry for the trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You indeed should have discussed it with King of Hearts. If, as I understand it, Ruby Yadav was elected between the AfD closure and now, and her notability is now verifiable, I would probably recommend drafting the article and putting it through WP:AFC to have it approved before publication. Even if you went to WP:DRV they'd likely endorse the deletion but allow recreation if the draft is convincing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Recreating an AfDd article (or allowing it) is something I've only done once before, so proper procedure just wasn't at the forefront of my mind. I'll leave a note for Ruby Yadav to let her know how to handle the recreation she no doubt will wish to puruse. My humblest apologies to you and User:King of Hearts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No harm done! The intention was constructive and I have good hopes the result will be also. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to give you a heads-up that I'm going to probably ask for a move review of Driving licence. We are supposed to use the first non-stub version of the article in order to determine which variety to WP:RETAIN--by any reasonable definition of "non-stub" that version included the title driver's license. Red Slash 04:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the strongest conviction about this close either (I was patrolling old, unclosed RMs), so a move review is an absolutely appropriate option. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Driving licence

An editor has asked for a Move review of Driving licence. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Red Slash 22:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No disrespect was intended in the least, by the way. Both WP:RMCI and WP:ENGVAR have their own bizarre rules that make sense once you understand them but are difficult to intuitively grasp, even by seasoned administrators. Thanks for your constructive commentary and for leaving a well-explained closure that made a move review easy to write. Red Slash 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Salvidrim,

The user you've recently unblocked is continuing his disruptive editing and vandalising of articles again. He is continuing his disruptive editing on the Wikipedia articles especially on the royal houses or noble families and this time he is vandalising the articles of the members of the Georgian noble family of House of Mukhrani. He was blocked in the past but it seems he learned no lesson. He is removing the important details out of the articles and vandalises them as he did in the past. He was warned in the past many times but he still continues so. Please do everything possible to avoid Wikipedia by his disruptive editing on the articles of the Georgian nobility or royalty. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That user hasn't been blocked for editing problems since 2010. There was a one-week block earlier this year for sockpuppeting (and an indef-block of the sockpuppet). I am not involved nor cognizant of any history concerning the user's actual edits and recommend that you seek assistance elsewhere. Have you tried discussing it with FactStraight directly? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

He has just removed the sourced information here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Please take some action for stoping his behaviour. He is clearly pushing his own propaganda is advocating his own personal views into Wikipedia and this needs to stop. He is long been doing this is messing the articles around. He claims to be for neutrality though he is clearly making propaganda out of wikipedia by putting there his own personal interpretations and this can in no way be acceptable on Wiki. Jaqeli (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You really think that I had created this article?[2] OccultZone (Talk) 06:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm stupid.
2. I'm sorry.
3. I'm going to try blaming this on my phone. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

No problem. Nice signature, I may copy it once I am bored with my current one. OccultZone (Talk) 05:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free! Just pick your own color to prevent claims of impersonation. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Next generation of NYCSLover-IPs. Seeing this list of edits, it is no gambling that it is him again. The Banner talk 20:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick service, thanks! The Banner talk 21:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need to add a {{pp-vandalism}} to Template:Mario franchise, because it has {{documentation}}, which automatically adds any padlock icon that may be appropriate. That is why I didn't simply add a <noinclude>...</noinclude> myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, didn't know that! I thought I had just forgotten to check the "noinclude tags" box in Twinkle. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

While I don't care that you copied directly from one of my GAs, it would be nicer if you were a tad less obvious. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I did my very best to rephrase most of the content that was recycled, but obviously the specific paragraph which I drew inspiration from discusses both subjects, so whether I reworded or rewrote from scratch, it would've ended up saying the same things. However, the origin of some of the paragraph was certainly not a GA, so I'm a bit confused. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Over a third of the new article was raised from the original, not counting the standard text on a wikipedia page. [3] While I have sympathy for how hard it is to paraphrase, I think it would have been easier if you went to the original source texts. For example, one of the books, I think Strabala, has a whole chapter on Platte. As for the GA part, I apologize, I switched Jackie Hudson and Carol Gilbert. (The only reason I noticed this was the hanging Harvard citations without a sources section.) --Guerillero | My Talk 03:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point; I have removed the Harvard sources for the reasons outlined in my edit summary. As for the comparion, the longest match is 13 words, and spans the end of a sentence in addition to the start of the next one, and it is the only match over 9 words, which makes me confident the rephrasing work was sufficient to satisfy our policies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why have you deleted this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masthead_Studios&action=edit&redlink=1 article? We (Masthead Studio) are alive and well. Here is the website of our game www.play-gar.com . It has active players and is soon to be released on Steam. Is there a way to bring it back? Or at least give us the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ult.disaster (talk • contribs) 08:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it only because I enacted the community's consensus: see the discussion. First of all, you need to be fully aware of our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, which seems to be your case since you indicate you are editing on behalf of Masthead Studio, which runs contrary to Wikipedia's goals; we do not exist to provide visibility or publicity. I am not opposed to restoring the deleted article as a draft which could then be improved and submitted to our review process for new articles to make sure it complies with our policies, notably concerning the notability of companies, before being published again, but you will need to convince me that Masthead Studios meets the notability policy and that you will not fail to adhere to our policy on neutrality of content. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We are aware of the policies and we would like to apologize if the editing for profanity made you believe we contributed to the Masthead Studios Article. We would like to assure you that the edit was for the sole purpose of deleting profanity language used in the wikipedia and we will make sure to ask for help our community to help with the editing. We respectfully would like to ask for your help and restore the article as a draft and we will make sure to provide the necessary information to meet the notability policy. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ult.disaster (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Draft:Masthead Studios. Please use the green button that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" to have it reviewed when you feel it is ready to be published again. Please ensure it uncontroversially meets our policies concerning the notability of companies in order to avoid seeing it be deleted again, where restoration will not be a possibility. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See editlist for all the standard targets. The Banner talk 22:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• New sock blocked also (though I assume you have the SPI on your watchlist!). Thanks for keeping an eye out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Nelson D. Cole (soldier)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Nelson D. Cole (soldier). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Nelson D. Cole. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Nelson D. Cole – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 220 of ^Borg 20:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please pay a bit more attention in the future. I have the oldest revision at that title only because I moved to the properly disambiguated title. The article was accidentally unredirected when a user edited this title instead of the fixed one. This is not a candidate for A10, and neither am I the author of the content of either page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

AGF. You only got this message because Twinkle assumed you are the page creator, and sent this message automatically. :-\ --220 of ^Borg 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I still like you. *hug* I don't wanna be the sermon-y type but someday you'll surely find an admin grumpier than I am that will rattle on about how "you're responsible for every edit you make even when tool-assisted" and yadda yadda. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Well in my parts men rarely hug. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) Instead for stress relief we stroke our pussies er, kittens that is! (You know what I meant!) O:-)

220 of ^Borg 04:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That grumpier admin could be me if someone was silly enough to nominate me. (One person did, got blocked! :-o )

I have been 'chasing' after that editor for some time and haven't even had a peep in reply. Or an edit summary as they remove still valid maintenance templates. It was very late here too, about 6am+ (UTC +10), and I hadn't been to bed, yet. Only had a few hours kip since! So if I had taken time to work out exactly what was going on, I might have realised what was happening, as it was it looked like they were cuttn' n' pastin'.
Just as likely I would have nodded off over my tab..)..3 ..... Zzzzzzz. Wha? Sorry! Just like that! ;-) --220 of ^Borg 04:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edited above post as they have now used some edit summaries! Yay!--220 of ^Borg 04:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

IIRC they did C-n'-P the article from Nelson D Cole to Nelson D. Cole (soldier), since Nelson D. Cole had been WP:SALTed for repeated copyright violations. I made sure there was no copyvio this time around, histmerged it all, moved it to the proper title Nelson D. Cole, and did some maintenance on it. Also, for some reason, I was entirely convinced that you were an admin already. I've never seen your name before yesterday, so I'm obviously not the best person to nominate you, but perhaps HJ Mitchell could? He's a respected admin and from what I can see, he "took care" of you when you finally created an account. I would definitely support an RfA though! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Never seen . . .  :'-( And I thought I was so well known!
I just wander around fixing things, adding references, been hanging out at new page patrol a lot recently. Welcome some noobs. The odd UAA, AVI and SPI report. Haven't actually had any contact with HJ for a long time. :-\ --220 of ^Borg 12:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. This is a followup to the email I sent you. It seems you had blocked the mobile IP address my smartphone happened to hook up to tonight, so I was unable to edit even though I was logged in. I just figured out a workaround by logging into my ambulance's WiFi hotspot and thus switching to a different IP -- but it means going from a 4G to a 3G connection, slooow! Hoping you fix this soon, too much collateral damage from these blocks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't get an e-mail from you. Can you tell me which IP address (or within which of the two rangeblocks) is being problematic? I had tried checking contributions from both ranges but didn't see any potential collateral... I'm more than happy to grant you IP-block-exemption if you're the only one affected. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange. The system sent me two copies of the email I tried to send to you, I don't know why you wouldn't have gotten it. I'm copy/pasting the email here so you can see it, including the IP address the block message told me I was using.

From: "Elipongo" <elipongo@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2014 1:36 AM
Subject: Copy of your message to Salvidrim!: IP blocked, even though I'm logged in!
To: "Elipongo" <elipongo@gmail.com>
Cc: 

> Hi there Salvidrim.
>
> I'm User:Elipongo, aka Elias Friedman.
>
> I tried doing some mobile editing tonight from my seat here in my ambulance, and found that the mobile IP my phone happens to be hooked up to (2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/39) has been blocked by yourself. What's really odd is that I'm blocked even though I'm logged in!
>
> Hoping that you can fix this!
>
> -- Elias Friedman, User:Elipongo
> elipongo@gmail.com
>
> --
> This email was sent by user "Elipongo" on the English Wikipedia to user "Salvidrim!". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>
> The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

The problem persisted at 08:30am EDT while I was still at work, but now that I'm home, there isn't a problem -- because I'm using a different cell site, perhaps? Things seem to be okay now, but I'll let you know if the problem happens again.

P.S. It was a very strange experience, I've been editing here nearly a decade and never been blocked -- I didn't know what was going on at first because it wouldn't accept my approval of pending revisions without telling me why! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I found your email message just now, had gone to junk for some reason; I did get the "talk page message" notifications though. I added the IP-block-exempt flag to your account, which should enable you to edit while logged in despite the IP-range-block that is in effect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your revert at Tangled. I'm not going to make any other changes to it for fear of edit-warring, and this is not the hill I want to die on. However, I'm perplexed as to why you restored a version that fails WP:FILMPLOT in other ways (by inclusion of -agonist descriptions) and contains numerous punctuation and grammatical errors and rewarded an editor who was asked to take his reasoning (since an edit summary wasn't included) to the talk page and simply made their edits again. I agree with the size limit of FILMPLOT and that the plot summary in Tangled could be trimmed down, but this, in my opinion, is not the way to have accomplished that task. --McDoobAU93 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:FILMPLOT recommends a size of 400-700 words, unless the plot is particularly confusing, which Tangled's is certainly not. The new version is ~416 words long, which is reasonable for a classically-constructed Disney movie. The pre-trimming version is ~824 words long, which is largely more than recommended. I agree with your suggestion that "roles should be conveyed by the summary itself" and will make further improvements based on that recommendation. In addition, your reverts seemed to me like you were reverting the user's bold plot trimmings more because of their lack of explicit justifications than on their own merit, and I have found almost the entirety of the user's contributions to actually be improvements policy-wise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• But I will admit that after further review, I find the quality of language to have diminished significantly, which remains a point to be improved upon. Which hill would you wish to die on? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)