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

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional Autopatrolled right, Salvidrim. It was unexpected but I'm sure it will help my editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I've long believe autopatrolled should be granted a lot more liberally -- as long as the editor is generally trusted not to create CSD'able articles, there's no strong requirement that all their page creations should be flagged for review. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that this privilege might have been the result of creating so many Signpost pages this morning. Sorry if I flooded the New Pages Patrol list! I forgot that new pages need to be patrolled. I'm about halfway through this process so it will definitely help not to cause the patrollers to feel overwhelmed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I actually noticed about this because one of the case pages you recently created prompted me with the "Mark this page as patrolled" link in the lower right corner. I'd point out to you that admins are autopatrolled by default, in case you're interested... just saying. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• And thanks for doing the sensible thing at WP:RFP/A. Alakzi (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yea, as you can see above, I think autopatrolled rights are handed out much too strictly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I just recently add new info about Little Mac that he was confirmed to be the same unnamed boxer from the arcade versions that I just found that info from the Game Tips about Little Mac's origin in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U that I sourced it from my Miiverse account for sourcing reference and I am not completely sure if I need some help with the grammar corrections about for Little Mac to be completely nice (that I have a special ed disability and may not be good with English that I passed English 95 as of right now) and plus, I just talked to Jenks24 about that he closed the discussion about moving the page and plus, it's way too early and it's just not fair for all of us about it, but Czar and I were talking to him and he don't even get about it, but is it possible if you can might open the discussion back up and everyone can have it as a fair way for helping out the page or is there a way that I can might find a better way to open the discussion up so that we don't have to revote again for moving the title name and it could cause an another problem, I was trying to convince him, but he doesn't seem to take it serious?DigiPen92 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim! I saw you removed a request in an attempt to archive it. Just so you know it needs to be added to the approved/denied log, in this case at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/June 2015, otherwise the bot can't fetched previously declined requests. I went ahead and did this. I'll email Kingpin13 asking to give his bot another run since we're a little backed up at the moment, but just so ya know, MusikBot will soon be taking over the task! Almost have the implementation complete and it will hopefully go to trial very soon. Best :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Any time! Thank you for your three thank yous. If you ever need help with Commons, please leave me a message over there! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it's a pleasure helping out over there, and I'm still familiarizing myself with policies wrt deletion and licensing. I've been an admin on enwiki for some years but images are never an area I gave much thought to before! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you protected Ellen Pao but not Reddit. There both under the same "fire" at the moment, wouldn't it be smart to protect both for the time being? Anarchyte 02:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I protected Pao specifically under BLP/DS concerns, which are not as applicable to Reddit's article. It doesn't look like there's much warring or vandalism TBH, so if you have concerns they should be taken to the talk page (and maybe to RFPP is there are further issues). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to say a belated thanks for helping the move discussion at Talk: Super Hydlide to move forward. I also apologize if I was at all rude during the discussion; I always try to remain completely civil during disagreements but I'm not always the best at moderating my posts. Thanks again.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, disagreements are an integral part of collaboration, and I don't take stuff personally (unless you really make it personal!) :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish I could say "my pleasure", but this is anything but a happy situation. It's always a sad day when sanctions have to be authorized for a topic area, but hopefully it signals that things will get better from here on out. I try to remain an optimist! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• So, for now, WP:GS/ZG and its templates have been created, what remains is tagging articles appropriately. I might opt to let other editors send out user notifications as relevant. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Roger roger on notifications. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you help with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? Putting their name into news.google.com gets a lot of results but i can't exrtract the reliable info from the weak. Paul Austin (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi there! Thanks for your efforts to improve coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. I'm not super familiar with Australia sources so I might not be the best person to help you sort through it all -- but I recommend you leave a message on Wikiproject Australia's talk page, where you will no doubt find someone more qualified to help you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you mentioned on your userpage that one may "trout you freely", but you do not have the {{trout me}} template there. Maybe add that to your userpage, as it appears to be a more common way of stating your openness to trouting.MopSeeker (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Your essay at User:Salvidrim!/Wikipedia_is_a_backlog is an excellent description of the nature of Wikipedia.

MopSeeker (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Office de la protection du consommateur. Since you had some involvement with the Office de la protection du consommateur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel bad you made a good start and we make Wikipedia better. I am struggling a bit with the translation so certainly you can help me clear it up a bit: but while I have the first stab can you lay off it so we don't get edit conflicts? Thanks. But certainly it will need a good cleanup cos my first translation always is kinda not very English (even though I am English), just not getting it quite idiomatic. I'm also struggling to know how much to try to do this US or Canadian English vs British English. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm on the bus anyways. I'll take a peek back after dinner and complete the needed work. Thanks a lot for your help! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've done the first draft translation and marked it as such, so your turn now, I am sure there are lots of mistakes. @Ivanvector: I think is Canadian (but not Quebecois, I think Ontarian) so may be able to tidy up my bad English, this should really be in Canadian English, and I have wavered a lot between "merchant", "trader", "seller" and so on which is kinda elegant variation in French (and Hungarian) but is not good in English, so that could do with tidying. But it's a start. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking a bit nicer now I think but I am sure you can make it better. Better than what we had a day ago, anyway! You could take this to WP:DYK as five times expanded (I am up for what I can put in as have had five, and I haven't time on my hands to review others ) but there is not really much of an interesting fact in there. Did you know

...that Quebec had no consumer contract law until 1971?

but that's not very interesting.

I enjoyed doing the translation by the way I have not done one for a while. The languages I speak don't come up often at WP:PNT.

Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll certainly scour media sources about the OPC itself whenever I get the chance to... I am indeed hoping that we'll get a DYK out of this! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to pop in to say the same, that the Wikipedia is only improved by people starting to do things, even if they don't quite finish, so nothing to feel bad about. I'm on my phone but I can scan the article for Canadian English a bit later. Si, thanks for the vote of confidence but Salvidrim is himself Québecois and is probably better suited than either of us to polish the translation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yea, for translation it's all good, but my own "natural" English (learnt online more than anything, while interacting with international peers) is a hot mess of at least four different ENGVARs, so I spell learnt, gray, defense, realize, favourite but honor, center, connexion, paralyze, cancelled but traveler, cheque, donut but yoghurt, sulphur, all that tainted by Quebec English. It's grown to a point where I often don't know what spelling is "supposed" to belong with what ENGVAR. And don't get me started on my everyday Frenglish where I conjugate English verbs with French tenses and suffixes. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Savldrim!. I happened to notice your name on my watchlist since you responded to somebody at WT:Editing restrictions. Would you have some interest in thinking about format improvements for the editing restrictions file?

1. Entries don't have the name of the closer
2. Entries don't show the date of the action

My guess is that the rightmost column might be expanded by adding parenthesized items under the expiration date. If I can get even one person to think this is a good idea, I might follow up by posting at the Arbcom clerks talk page, since clerks often make additions to the page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Date of start would be nice but ultimately non-essential for an already very horizontally-bloated template; same with closer name. The community discussion matters, the closer doesn't (he's just assessing community consensus, closer isn't making any decision). And date of start is just data, not useful to enforce active sanctions (as opposed to end date). Start date only serves in case of appeals, in which case the link to the discussion is sufficient to ascertain when consensus for the sanction was confirmed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The lack of a date in EDR entries means that new restrictions are sometimes added at the top, and sometimes at the bottom, since no chronology is visible.
2. In the very first entry in WP:EDR, the phrase occurs "This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption." Wouldn't it be helpful if the date of adoption were easily available?
3. To avoid using more horizontal space, my idea is to add parenthesized notes under the expiry date in the right hand column. This way no columns have to be added.
4. At WP:DSLOG the name of the closer and the date of the action are easily available. Why should EDR be more vague? (end of hand-waving remark). The name of the closer gives the banned person someone to contact in case of questions. I agree that an AN closer is different from an AE closer, since it isn't "their ban." EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• On your first point -- since different sanctions for the same user are grouped in rowspans, chronological order means nothing. IMO it should be ordered alphabetically!!!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, in case its fallen off of your watchlist or something. I imagine discussion is incoming, and I figured you'd want to be part of it? Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Naw dude, it's all on my watchlist, and I've been carefully reviewing Czar stubredirecting, merging content whenever appropriate. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

An IP vandal keeps adding hoax information to List of Mario racing games and more recently Sega Sports R&D and List of Mario role-playing games. I was looking through the edit history on List of Mario role-playing games and noticed you blocked 2 editors (in May and March) for adding the same hoax info and recorded why at User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal. Judging by their edits this might be the same person IP hopping very frequently. Here's the list of vandals from those 3 articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 92.40.248.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.29.165.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.197.120.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.29.164.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.197.121.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.40.249.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.197.121.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.40.249.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.40.249.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.29.165.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These ranges would be totally new to this LTAer and the edits, while similar, aren't exactly the same (nothing Macy-related + relatively few/recent edits + older but still recent edits in totally unrelated topics), so I'd recommend to monitor-only for now, and/or block for vandalism without necessarily linking to the MacyVG vandal. Thanks for your vigilance! Note that most, if not all, of these articles and lists are watchlisted, so I was already aware and looking into these IPs. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Kirby's Block Ball

Hey Salv, when you have a chance, could you take a look at this review and let me know if there are any good parts worth including in the article? My French isn't quite there yet. Bon week-end, – czar 20:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't fogotten this, I'll get around to it within a few days I swear! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate it, but no rush—I have my hands full with busywork. – czar 02:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There you go for Kirby's Block Ball, Czar. I'll come back for the rest later. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

R.C. Pro Am

• Also working on this one. Particularly interested in what they liked/hated for opinions in the Reception section. No sweat if you don't have time – czar 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll get back to this one later, hopefully it's not too urgent? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Finally! There you go, Czar:

• One thing I realize translating these is that English reviewers mostly uses generic you (semantically second-person used to refer to an indefinite third person) while French uses generic "on" (semantically third-person but literally second-person-plural used to refer to the players + the readers + the reviewer as an all-encompassing but ultimately indefinity party). I've used "we" in my translations because it's what "on" literally means, but it looks weird and is lexically and figuratively roughly equivalent to a generic English "you". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Slalom

• ...and Gen 4 #7 pp 44–45 and Tilt #49 pp 99–100 for Slalom (video game)—even if you could point me to which boxes to fumble around in, I'm looking for a place to start – czar 22:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Slalom is on neither of the page pairs you mention -- did you get that from MobyGames? Sometimes they get issue numbers or page numbers wrong... I'm stupid and had reversed the two page ranges. :p I'll definitely have all four translations by tomorrow, promise! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! But don't bother with

Tilt

Les simulations de ski ne sont pas monnaie courante et les amateurs peuvent se réjouir d'en avoir une pour console Nintendo. D'autant plus qu'elle est simple et le jeu se révèle aussi distrayant que difficile. Au départ on choisit la piste dans une liste de trois et l'on se trouve rapidement sur le terrain des opérations. On se recroqueville afin d'atteindre rapidement une vitesse maximale. C'est alors que les premières difficultés arrivent. Cela commence par des bosses et des sapins que l'on doit éviter tout en passant dans les portes. Ensuit, le parcours devient plus complexe et on s'aperçoit que l'on n'est pas sel à apprécier le grand air et les sports d'hiver... Skieurs divers, ours, luges; tous coupent votre route de manière inconsidérée et vous obligent à ralentir. Cela est d'autant plus énervant que votre but est de finir le parcours en un temps limité. De bons moments en perspective...

(I did it myself and it wasn't worth it—all gameplay details, no actual review.) – czar 23:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Here goes the first Slalom review:

Interestingly, the two reviewers (brother/sister? married?) seem cleanly opposed when it comes the the game's "fantasy" value! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I also translated the second review (I has already started before you said not to bother, so I thought I might as well go all the way!) It's actually a 10-page featurette about, according to the opening blurb, forty-eight Sega and Nintendo cartridges -- action, arcade, simulation: controllers to the maximum!. The author is not specified anywhere.

There you go for these two, Czar! I've also taken the liberty of properly formatting citation templated in the collapse header boxes if you want to copy them straight to an article. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• [1] Thanks—I don't always catch edits marked as minor. Not sure how I messed up that citation either... – czar 21:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, they're all incorporated. No need to fully translate R.C. Pro-Am II if you're busy—I just want to summarize its major points, if you can pull those out. – czar 01:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I probably won't be home at all until next Thursday (spending some quality time with a very good friend while their roommates are out on vacation), translating on a phone in a bitch and I can't really access the source from work. I'll try to find some late-night time to look at the review over the weekend. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NCVGDAB 6.1, Mario Party should be at Mario Party (video game) and Mario Party (series) at Mario Party... --Izno (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@ShyGuy8: too. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily disagree, Izno, I just cleaned up after a half-completed move by ShyGuy8. You're free to revert, or preferably, start an RM to make the outcome binding. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Which will close as speedy re-move... I have reverted the VG move but need an admin to take care of series movie. Can you take care of that please? --Izno (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Kinda makes me wonder why I even fixed the latter half of the initial move instead of reverting what had already been done. Sorry for the trouble and thanks a lot for setting things right. I'd still like to see an RM for the sake of cementing this for any future dispute but I guess the outcome would be so predictable as to make the process futile. I've MPP'ed the page in the meantime. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Amusingly enough, I just noticed I had asked about the exact same thing on the article's talk page mere days after I started editing; I didn't remember that, but I guess I can understand why that would feel like "the good choice" to a newcomer. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  I noticed that, and you did it on both the vg and series talk pages. I also noticed that the series article has been moved 3 times now back to the un-disambiguated location... This is perennial, for some reason. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  I'm cringing right now, but also kind of nostalgic of the innoncence I still clung to back then... anyways, MPP means it'll take an RM or nothing gets moved. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  OMFG CAPTIAL LETTERS ARE CRUISE CONTROL FOR WIKI. (MISSPELLING NOT DELIBERATE BUT I'M LEAVING IT FOR HUMOR'S SAKE.) --Izno (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it changes anything for you, but I followed up with S Marshall and their "endorse" didn't actually mean "overturn and merge" (Special:PermanentLink/675738875#GTAV closure review). I'm unfamiliar with AN's norms so I don't know if it's more of a straight up vote than the rest of WP, but I contest whether there was a clear consensus to merge the re-release into the main article. I would have closed it as "no consensus" based on the arguments, myself. – czar 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is ever as clean-cut and black-and-white as we'd like... I'll come back later to expand the thinking behind the closure, but I see your objections to it and don't want you to think I'm avoiding you -- I respect your opinion and judgement highly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, here are my thoughts. I try to avoid thinking about the merits of the merger proposal itself and sticking to analyzing the consensus, the "feel" of the discussion, to steer well clear of any supervoting concerns. The original merger discussion, by itself, from my perspective as an uninvolved admin, sits are maybe 75% of the way to "actual" consensus to merge, and 25% of the way towards "no consensus".
• In a broad summary, arguments for the merge were that there's weren't enough differences between the two topics and that developement of the re-release can be better covered under Development of Grand Theft Auto V and the rest of the information about it can be woven throughout the main GTA V article; other re-released games such as GTA IV don't have separate articles, changes were purely technical (same plot/gameplay), and notability isn't a factor, because of course both the first and second releases are notable. Arguments against the merge include precendents such as Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary and The Last of Us Remastered, and that the re-release has spurred significant renewed media coverage specifically dedicated to the re-release; also, merging would cause clutter.
• I don't find either side of the argument to be so poor or so strong in regards to policy so as to tip the scales definitively, which leads me to the obvious conclusion that this is not a policy matter, but an editorial matter.
• Mainline421, Masem, 68.51.193.141, Attitude2000, EoRdE6, Cyclonius, Stranger195, The1337gamer, shinsukato, Umais Bin Sajjad, DangerousJXD, Katastasi, Aria1561 and Felix Wolf spoke out in favor of the merge, for a total of 14 people. Cr4ze, Rhain1999, TheDeviantPro, Smmmaniruzzaman, Gamingforfun365, Anarchyte, Burkelmore1 spoke out against the merge, for a total of 7 people. Of course, WP:NOTAVOTE and all that, but that's doesn't mean numbers are negligible.
• Since both "sides" of the argument are based more on editorial preference than on policy (or at least, neither is incorrectly or insufficiently based in policy), the option favored by two thirds of the responders seems to be the one that should be actuated. However, of course, both a "no consensus" and a "merge" close appear to be justifiable under administrative discretion. What truly seals the deal towards consensus to merge for is the AN closure review: Mainline421 (the original merge proposer) and uninvolved closure reviewers Only in death duty ends, Kudpung and 68.65.169.12 all opined (some strongly) that the discussion should be closed as a succesful merge proposal. Guy Macon also spoke out against Snuggums' original close. Only S Marshall said he would opt more for a "no consensus" close, which, while reasonable on the surface, I do not feel accurately represents the discussions as a whole and the discussion surrounding the closure.
• I hope this has shed some light into the thought that went behind the final closure. Of course, WP:CCC, and nothing specifically precludes a new discussion leading to a different consensus. Czar, feel free to link to this diff of the detailed explanation if you feel necessary elsewhere, but I don't think it is strictly essential at this point. I understand that you said you would've decided on a definitive "no consensus" closure, and hopefully I've helped see my own perspective. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I understand. Thanks for writing all of it out (wasn't expecting you to, though!) I wish the discussants would have used more links and quoted the sources more. Oh well, it's a fine close for now, though I do expect the re-release to come back in the long run. – czar 04:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't have felt right for me to ever again ask for a closer to explain a non-obvious close if I wasn't myself ready to step up and provide detailed explanations. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• As a side note, I personally believe that consensus might've swung against merging if the re-release had a different title, such as GTA V: Enhanced Edition or whatever. That seems trivial, but human psychology makes it more natural to consider two things are distinctly separate if they are named differently... which is part of the reason for other similar re-release splits such as The Last of Us Remastered. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I was previously blocked for suspected sock puppetry and you approved my appeal on this, but my account is still listed as "blocked indefinitely. Here is the link to my talk page showing your approval of my appeal at the bottom of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImiBill

Can you please change the status of my account to be in good standing as it should be with your approval of my appeal? Please let me know if there is any other information you need from me.

Thank you very much,

Bilby

08/17/15

ImiBill (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi! Your account is not blocked. Can you be a little more precise as to what exactly you want me to fix? Thank you! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear from the instructions whether "contact the closing admin" means here on your talk page or otherwise, but lacking clear instructions, here I am.

You recently closed the AfD on Rescue! This contentious AfD was in the midst of being reviewed. Sources were being added throughout the process, but the other editors could not view them (lacking the proper machinery). I forwarded both of them PNGs of the information in question, but neither added anything about this to the AfD. When I returned this morning, I found the AfD was closed.

I'm not sure whether to attempt to re-open the existing AfD or if I should start with a review, but in either case it seems it flows though here. Let me know!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• There had been no comment for two days. Out of two back-to-back AfDs in the same month, everybody agreed on deletion (except you). There is no way for anyone to view this as anything other than consensus to delete. If you believe that my evaluation of the discussions is incorrect, you are of course permitted to take it to deletion review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I removed my name. I really can't take any credit for this. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

once again. (I'm glad to find out that I am, at least, the Supreme one.) BMK (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hellow sir, Iam trying to create a wiki account but its being blocked..and actually i was blocked by some reasons 1 year ago and since im trying from that time, its showing blocked and sockpuppet of that acoount i creaed at the beginning. Thank You Hopefully--188.55.249.103 (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Last time I did a merge/split the template wasn't that smart, I was trying to get that behavior but couldn't figure out how to get it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. This is much better documented in the LTA case anyhow. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by your edit here. I am not sure if you missed my edit which stated that I have sent email to HJ Mitchell. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Meh, you're right, I hadn't noticed the fact you had sent it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In regard to your comments here -- I believe I have located the new sock account. Still waiting for more evidence. If you want, I will let you know when I file an SPI on Kbabej again with any new accounts I suspect that pop up. No doubt he will be (and is already) back. Like I said, I'm just waiting for the evidence to present itself. Thank you for the finding in the most recent one. I, too, thought the behavioral evidence was unmistakable and too compelling to be coincidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• The CU finding possibly means the user is getting more apt at evading scrutiny... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I know what you are referring to. Location information is the key to future reports. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yo, can you link me to the original deletion discussion for this page. I'd like to see it, as I believe this person is notable enough for an article now since the last discussion. Andre666 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boogie2988 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You rejected my request in record time but did not respond to my follow-up question. That would be helpful. Alakzi (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Salvidrim. If you have a second (and this hasn't already been done), can you delete Luke Cage (TV series) and its talk, to move Draft:Luke Cage (TV series) there? I put the non-controversial template to get it done, and no other admin has gotten to it. And subsequently, an IP saw that and is "contesting" it on the talk, failing to understand it has to happen to move the draft in. Thanks in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I am a guest here and here is a emoji for ya ☺ 151.225.135.69 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I am a guest here and here is a emoji for ya ☺ 151.225.135.69 (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, no worries—I'd actually forgotten completely about the Lucia Black debate, let alone your comment. It might have stung a bit in the moment, but it clearly made no lasting impact. As for the ban, apology accepted and no harm done. I did cross the line with my remark, anyway. (Although I would protest that, given the circumstances, my reaction was at least understandable!) If you plan to run for the position, good luck! I can't imagine subjecting my own Wikipedia history to that level of scrutiny—even without the typical character assassination, there's no way to come out smelling like a rose after being on the site 10 years. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JustBerry (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Vanjagenije (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing (including Junk mail). Try e-mailing me directly? My address is on my userpage. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yo V, I still haven't received anything from you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

• • Still nothing Vanjagenije, if there is still something you need me for, try re-sending it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I am not watching your talk page, so I was not aware of the situation. I did not save the message (as usual), so I'l write it again. I'l ping you when I send it. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sent. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Got it! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)