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

It doesn't make sense for Talk:Nintendo NX to redirect to draft-space while the mainpage redirects to Nintendo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• The talk pages of all the alternative NX potential title redirects are centralized to foster constructive discussion. Please see the header and discussion at Draft talk:Nintendo NX. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Female police. Since you had some involvement with the Female police redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel its a little shameful that I need to ask for help on this...but do you know why it seems that the bot that archives my talk page has stopped doing so? My talk page is massive, and while I know I can do it manually, I don't know how to add new archive pages to the archives table of contents if I make new archive pages manually... Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know if it's the issue or only issue, but your counter is off. The bot config is on 33 but you are on archive 34 now. The archives box should update automatically just by creating a new archive page, nothing special to do. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Another "issue" is that you have the criteria at 60 days.... Quick scan shows no sections inactive for 60 days, hence no archiving. Your Vandalism pt7 will not archive because Vandalism pt8 is a subsection and is active. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ferret's got it right. Or you can be a control-freak like I am and archive stuff manually. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the help. I've adjusted the settings in hopes to get it going again. (I'm surprised I had it set to 60 days of inactivity, that seems high...) I don't mind having some of them there, like the vandalism one, there, as I like having a little "mini-AIV" to help people with, and some need to stick around, like ones about spotting people socking/block evading, but there's so much crap in between that doesn't need to be there anymore. I don't mind doing it manually, but I didn't know if the bot would get messed up if I manually started up up a new archive page to put all this stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yo, don't sweat it, it's what I'm here for. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Could use a hand here czar 00:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you forgotten you're an admin? :p Clearly a troll, tried to warn you on your talk page while... faking your own signature? A real winner! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding INVOLVEDment, etc. Thanks! 🍒 czar 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if you're tracking this guy, but here's another IP controlled by the Macy's vandal: 70.199.67.79 (talk · contribs) --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Urrrrgh, so fucking tired of this.... thanks anyways for flagging it. Hardblocked the IP and re-softblocked the range. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering if you thought it was okay to include commentary from editors who are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia or topic banned. I thought it would at least be mentioned in the lead up to the interview material, but no. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Liz : Note #4, a few lines before the interviews start: "In anticipation of problems arising from contacting and publishing responses from prominent banned editors, the WP:VG Newsletter contacted a member of the Arbitration Committee who clarified that neither the Newsletter's printing of answers nor the responses of the banned individuals would constitute violations of their sanctions. Evidence of this can be made available to administrators on request." ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also I'm not sure if you intended to address your question to me directly since I've had little to do with the production of the Newsletter, but I'm replying anyways. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, I don't know how I missed that! Well, it's a long article. I asked you because I saw you had responded to the article and you're an admin and I thought, "I know someone will raise this question." I wasn't holding you responsible, I just wanted your take on the situation. Thanks so much for filling me in on what I missed. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz no worries! When I found out Ryulong was being interviewed (I actually found out from Ryulong before I found out from the Newsletter drafting team!), my first instinct was to check to make sure this participation had been cleared with ArbCom. I'd hate for it to be held against Ryulong when he's being specifically sought out to provide his opinions on the situation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim! could you take a look at [1], [2], and [3]? Appears to be the same editor as earlier today with Czar and AdrianGamer, under a new IP. -- ferret (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

•  IP blocked -- Serge and Czar are also admins, so if this fucknut comes back under a new IP and I'm not available, ping either of them. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody/Archive page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• What the fuck!? Lay off the drugs, buddy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, okay, there was a citation error. Never thought I'd have to fix these in an SPI archive, of all places! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to think about your conclusions. Partly because what you say makes sense, partly because the AN/I-case feels like bullying an inconvenient guy away. Especially because the case was filed in the middle of an AfD. The Banner talk 23:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't reasonably have worked so tirelessly to AfD a specific subset of articles (beauty pagent contestants) without expecting some people to get pissed off at you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had the powers to unravel the whole mess around pageants. I know of sock puppets and meat puppets. I suspect undeclared paid editing, but can't prove it. Plus some guys who think the I just randomly nominate articles and misuse WP:BEFORE/Common Outcomes/WikiProject rules to add extra thresholds. But it is against my religion to give up... The Banner talk 00:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I found it very odd that you revdeleted your own comment at Starke_Hathaway's talk page. What occurred that led you to do this? Thanks in advance. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Run for a succesful RfA and you'll find out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No clues at all? It's hardly an unreasonable request- which of the WP:CRD applies to your decision to revdelete your own comment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was speaking to someone and addressed them directly, turns out I was (probably) mistaken, and what I had said originally thus became quite inappropriate in retrospect and unworthy of being archived normally in the revision history, especially in light of privacy concerns. Out of respect for both Starke Hathaway and the person I thought I was addressing, this is the last I will say on the matter. If you plan on hammering me over the head with WP:ADMINACCT, please note that I have responded to your concerns in a manner that was both prompt and civil, and that I have justified my actions as much as I feel is needed. If you believe that I have seriously, or repeatedly, acted in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community, you don't need me to show you where to address your concerns. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's all I wanted to know. Sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to, err, run you off the Wiki. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim! - I've temporarily blocked you as your account appears to be compromised. Worm^TT(talk) 08:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

The seemingly compromised accounts User:OhanaUnited and User:Salvidrim! are temporarily desysoped in accordance with Level I procedures for removing administrative tools.

Supporting: NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Euryalus, DeltaQuad

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

Discuss this at: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have asked ArbCom to confirm that this can now be reversed. If it were still just my IAR action, I would now reverse it, but as a motion was passed I think I need to ask them for permission. WJBscribe (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, please wait for ArbCom. I'm not an impatient man and I'd rather make sure they're fully re-assured. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim!, we are just processing the paperwork, won't be long and someone will post something at BN. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Good morning

Well, that's one shitty thing to wake up to! Salvidrim (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Try not to worry about it too much. Whilst of course it isn't great to find yourself in this position, this is easily fixed. Once you confirm who you are to ArbCom's satisfaction, everything can be put back to the way it was. And hopefully you've changed the compromised password everywhere else you use it. WJBscribe (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not actually a password I was currently using elsewhere, this was the "last place" where it was still in use since at least 2013 when I overhauled my personal password system. My guess would be that it was also used for an old Bell Canada account I don't even remember having but which was part of their hack in June 2014. I've already texted back the Arb who let me know about this, I've e-mailed stewards -- all I can do at this point is remain available for any verifications that may be needed. :) Salvidrim (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't think we've met Salvidrim, but if you think this is a silly mistake, way back in 1997 I made the really stupid mistake of leaving a Fender Stratocaster on the back seat of my car after I was too tired to bring it in after a gig. Came out at mid-day the next day, it had been stolen and it was not covered by my insurance (whereas it would be if I'd taken it in) and I was suddenly £450 out of pocket for being lazy and stupid. That is a big mistake. I think the stewards should sort this out soon enough as you're patient and you've identified to the WMF. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you had to got through this. Hey, atleast there's actually a purpose to those alts you created, right? ;) But anyways, email me if there's anything you'd like me to assist you with in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations! You have been promoted to the position of non-admin SPI clerk. Unfortunately, this promotion may be only temporary. Feel free to ask any questions of the SPI team about this honor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• This would've been a good time to have that committed ID ;) Kharkiv07 (T) 17:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• I know right? First thing I thought about this morning. But verification wasn't hard, so it wouldn't have changed much in this case. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, cool, now I can't even edit my own userpage. Sergecross73, could you lower the FPP to SPP for now? :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you make all my troubles go away and grant me permanent beatitude? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would if I could! Isn't this about wrapping up though? Seems like things have been cleared up except for the bureaucracy, right? Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Kinda. But it's still something I wish hadn't happened. It doesn't reflect brightly on myself and is unlikely to help in convincing people to grant me access to more private information (either as a CU or on ArbCom, both of which I have been considering more and more). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Answering "the" question

Since many want to know how the hell this happened: the compromised password was a string of 6 digits, six numbers, of no personal relevance and no pattern. They were randomly generated years ago. As I've said on my talk page, that password used to be used in multiple places but it was only in use on Wikimedia since at least 2013 when I changed all other places it was in use because I did not want my Wikimedia password to be used on other sites. When I became an admin I took this step to make sure my Wikimedia password was only used on Wikimedia. Perhaps I should have changed this one instead of change every other? Sure, it might have been better, and that might have been a mistake.

Unfortunately, there must have been a few old, forgotten accounts I did not remember and whose passwords I had not changed -- my bet would be on a very old, closed Bell Canada account. They were hacked in 2014, revealing passwords, and it is possible that the password I was using years ago there was the same that was still in use on Wikipedia. It might also explain why the other compromised admin was also from Canada. I've now changed my Wikimedia password to something far better (multiple words, odd caps, symbol/numbers). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Some random trivia - a long time ago many of my passwords were filenames of sound effects you would get if you unzipped the pak0.pak file that came with a registered version of Quake - stuff like ogsawatk1.wav (ie: Ogre chainsaw attack wave file, version 1), but I stopped using that around 1999 or so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This event prompted me to change my account's password. It had occurred to me that I had never changed it since the account was created over 9 years ago. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dammit Salvy, I was so sure you were on Ashley Madison and thats where they got your pass from ....--Stemoc 09:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but of course there are quite a few porn sites which I wouldn't want people to know I've accounts on. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not-uncommon that six-digit-passwords are used in dictionary-attacks; if the particular six digits you happened to randomly generate, were a valid birthdate, then that could be how it was compromised. Presumably wikipedia has facilities in place to prevent over-the-internet dictionary attacks, but brute force cannot be entirely eliminated, if the brute-force-adversary is persistent enough (by definition they are not being very clever). Best practice is to use a relatively long password ... the necessary length depends on how likely you think a persistent brute-force adversary is to exist ... and to regularly change it (which unspecified timespan once again depends on how likely you think it is that a sufficiently-motivated-n-powerful adversary exists). Also of course, only enter your password into hardware and software that you trust -- if your keyboard is compromised with a hardware keylogger, or the operating system with a software keylogger, or even somewhat-less-invasive web-browser-only compromise, it will not matter how long and complex your password is, because effectively you are typing the password right into the adversary's inbox. In any case, sorry you got into a password-related mishap. Soon we'll all have chips in our brains, directly wiring us to wikipedia, and won't have to worry about password mishaps; if some adversary gains control of your chip, your brain will never know the difference!  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• This incident has certainly prompted action on my part. I don't have any reason to believe I've been hacked recently, but I too was hacked. My email was hijacked and a whole bunch viral emails was sent from my account to my friends and family, fortunately I regained control and changed my password, but most of my passwords were the same, so I randomized all of my most important accounts, including wikipedia. I also enabled 2fa where I could, to add to security, unforunately, with random passwords, I can't really remember them. :/ That's what a password vault is for. :D—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Level I desysop of Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) is reversed. They may request to be resysoped at their earliest convenience on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Seraphimblade.

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

For the Arbitration Committee, --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

• Thank y'all! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done :-) WJBscribe (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Salvidrim!, I thank you for posting my appeal on my talk page. However, I still cannot edit my talk page. Even worse, I recently tried to do it and not only did it not work, but it blocked the IP for 24 hours. If I can't edit my talk page there is no way I can add further explanation and, unless an administrator reads my page by chance, I will remain blocked permanently. I hope that my writing directly to you will not be considered a violation of my block, I had no other way to let you know that something did not work properly. Thank you for heeding my call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.126.16 (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• You will need to login to your account Againstdisinformation to be able to edit User talk:Againstdisinformation and discuss your unblock request. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, Salvidrim!. This is exactly what I did. I went to my talk page and logged in as Againstdisinformation but I could not edit it. Then I tried to edit it as an IP but got the message: this IP is blocked for 24h because it has been recently used by user Againstdisinformation (I don't guarantee the exact wording). I am going to try again and, if it works, I'll let you know immediately. If you don't get any message from me, it means the IP has been blocked again. Sorry for the trouble I am giving tou and thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.126.16 (talk • contribs)

• If it does not work, please send me a screenshot by email (wikipediasalvidrim.net) of the message you get when trying to edit your talk page while logged into your account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Hello Salvidrim!, it's me again. Sorry for taking so long to reply. I did exactly what you told me, but I couldn't edit anything while logged in. I then tried to let you know editing as an IP but, like the first time, it blocked the IP. I therefore had to go somewhere else to send you this message, so that I don't have the possibility to send you a screenshot. However, I printed the message. It says:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users of this IP to edit pages has been automatically suspendedto prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong. A user of this IP was blocked by JzG for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Againstdisinformation". The reason given for Againstdisinformation's block is: "react TPA to appeal". This block has been set to expire: 13:35, 14 November 2015. The block ID is: 6399412. Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.

I hope there is something you can do (perhaps unblocking me completely and blocking me again immediately afterwards). Sorry for giving you all this trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.126.16 (talk • contribs)

• This should not happen if you are logged into the Againstdisinformation account; I'll look into it some more... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  His talkpage was fully protected, which is why he couldn't edit it. I have lowered the protection to allow discussion of an unblock request. WJBscribe (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  Damn, sorry for missing that (it didn't have a protection template on it), but thanks for finding out what the issue was, WJBscribe! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Salvidrim!, I am the user formerly known as Againstdisinformation. I almost forgot to thank you for taking my unblock request into consideration. Enjoy the Thanksgiving break. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A note to (talk page stalker)s (and also an attempt at organizing my own thoughts) -- there are, for now, 8 vacant seats on ArbCom for the upcoming election. I intend to nominate myself a few days in, unless there are at least 8 candidates I trust to sit as arbitrators; and will later withdraw my candidacy if there are ever 8 such candidates. To put it another way: if there are 8 candidates who I think would do a good job as arbitrators, I will not be a candidate. I don't want to be an arbitrator but I would rather sit on the committee than see someone I do not trust with the duties be elected due to a lack of an alternative. It is my hope that there will be a sufficient number of qualified, trusted candidates and thus that I will be able to sit the election out and instead support their candidacies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Little does Salvidrim! know that we will elect him regardless of his personal choice... MUAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. --Izno (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If you ran for ArbCom, I would miss you at WPVG. And the nominees usually hold out until the last few days, right? czar 03:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, I could withdraw last-minute too. ;) And I don't see ArbCom and WPVG work as being mutually exclusive! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's more ArbCom & rest of life being mutually exclusive czar 04:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you'd be a great choice, so I hope you end up going for it! Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You're planning on taking up a spot at Arbcom? Oh boy. That'll be fun to write about in the Arbcom Report. Also, it would be nice to see a WPVG member on ArbCom again after David Fuchs' tenure. GamerPro64 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

It's a shame you're withdrawing, you were on my list of 9. Nevertheless I understand and respect your decision, and I know that you will continue to work as a much needed front-line admin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Thanks a lot, pal, for letting us do the work for you: I have no doubt you'd have been elected. In fact, I'm opposing me and still supporting you. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I, too, am disappointed that you are withdrawing. I will not see it as a weakness if you reverse that decision. Your decision to run is as valid today as it was when you threw your hat into the ring. Please return and let the election play itself out with you as a candidate. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I join the choir: you won my support by your answers. I can't say if you would have made it to my top 9 in the end, but you are among my top 5 right now, - please reconsider, I would miss your voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Just piling on and saying you should reconsider withdrawing. Can't go wrong attempting. GamerPro64 17:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Echoing what others said. Jim Carter 05:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I know you hedged your original interest by calling yourself a contingency candidate, but if you are genuinely interested in serving (without qualifications or contingencies), I think this thread shows sufficient backing czar 16:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I was just looking over your section at Arbcom. They sure slam you with a lot of rough questions! And they say RFA is tough! I can't say I blame you for dropping out - that's a lot of work to get into a position where its nothing but wallowing through all these massive arguments, and then having 49% of the people involved upset at you for not siding with them. There's certainly a reason why there's a shortage of candidates... Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really see a shortage of candidate compared to previous years. There were 25 non-withdrawn candidates this year, and as you can see in the stats compiled (by Carcharoth, thanks!), it's pretty much at the same level as it has been for the past eight years. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh I see. I thought I had read that there were less people involved - I though that was the only reason you were interested. I must have misunderstood. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I probably expected less people to be involved. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Must be. Anyways, I was just trying to mix it up a bit, with all these comments lamenting your withdrawal ;) Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It'd be nice to hear your response to PtF's question regardless. 72.198.208.71 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll play along -- do you think StukaLied's words and actions are primarily notable for the harassment they contain? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I take your point...

...but think you should have stayed in the race anyway. BMK (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey man can you unsalt Talk:Wikipedia logo? Seems that was never made even while the user page was. Weird that was never fixed. GamerPro64 04:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks man. GamerPro64 04:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also histmerged the split revisions of the article and histmerged the four talk pages still at previous titles (no date overlaps so we're fine) and restored from history all the previous discussion, and tagged it with all relevant WikiProjects. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

24.184.9.205 (talk · contribs) Another Macy's IP has propped up. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Feel free to handle/log this however you guys usually do though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

hi, Salvidrim, hope you are well, Could you please nominate me for adminship I am very active on both English as well as Sindhi Wikipedia. I need adminship right for both English Wikipedia and Sindhi Wikipedia, So I could perform well and could perform technical unaccomplished tasks on Sindhi Wikipedia for its growth. And also help me in getting/creating my bot i.e(abstract) ["User:Jogi-bot"] ...here is my sdUser page (يوزر:اسد_علي_جوڳي)....Thanks--Jogi 007 (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't know you, so it would be illogical for me to nominate you for adminship. You're welcome to try contacting other admins with whom you've worked with in the past, or to nominate yourself -- but please read this before you continue thinking about adminship on English Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Yes, and just so you know, because I know it varies some by regions/languages, but the English language Wikipedia is extremely strict with its process for becoming an Admin. Their questions and comments are often rather aggressive and harsh, so I'd be very prepared going into it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The strictness of English RFA is why I won't even try. I know I've got way too many bad edit summaries or off the cuff talk page notes, or a mistaken AFD rationale or three (or five) in my past to survive the beating... -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LjL (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! Happy holidays to you and your loved ones. I hope you know I've got nothing against you personally. I'm still looking forward to the day you can start editing again in your topic area of preference. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, i appreciate that. And Happy Holidays to you and your loved ones as well. Lucia Black (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotta spread the love somehow. Here's to 2016 and whatever hijinx will come from it. GamerPro64 03:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Salvidrim! I notice that you were the administrator who closed the deletion discussion on Virtonomics early last month. Unfortunately, I was not notified of the discussion, so I was not able to participate in it. Checking two versions of the article, one from July (on Archive.org's Wayback Machine) and the other from September, I notice that all but one of sources, and the content it supported, were removed. Among the sources removed were two academic journals (Intelligent Information Management by Scientific Research Publishing and Entertainment Computing by Elsevier), and two articles, one by Business Press Russia (published by Russian business and industry news publisher Alliance Media NBP), and the other by Internet.ru (a now-defunct news website owned by Mail.Ru). The two latter articles were about the game being named as Business Game of the Year 2007 by Game World Navigator. I had added most of these sources to the article earlier this year, but someone deleted them between July and September, so that by the time the article was nominated for deletion in November, it had been reduced to a one-sentence stub with nothing left in it indicating notability.

Could you please check the article history to see if the June version would have passed the general notability guideline and survived the deletion discussion? --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Virtonomics

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Virtonomics. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Virtonomics

Hello,

Is there any chance that you might be able to comment at the DRV to explain why the AfD was closed so quickly? It seems that it was closed less than 24 hours after it was opened, and after only two !votes. Given that there are known to be "notable in Russia" language issues, and a previous AfD that closed as "keep", that does seem quite abrupt for a "delete" close.

I'm asking you here rather than on the DRV page because I don't want it to look like I'm accusing you of anything. All the same someone is bound to mention it so it might make sense to explain it earlier rather than later.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm..... May have been an honest mistake (an intentional snow close would've been labeled as such) but I'll have to take a look back at that day later tonight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Just plain closed by mistake" was my best guess (and I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often!). I don't think anyone will hold an honest mistake against you. Thparkth (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No but it might tip the scales to favor relisting. I'll definitely dig into this later tonight and add some explanations to the DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just looked into it, and yea, total mistake. I closed a few AfDs just before this one, dating from the same numerical date but from October instead -- clearly, I mistook this one as having been opened on October 5th and not November 5th. Oops! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for being so gracious about the situation. In my opinion, the DRV isn't really necessary at this point, since it's not controversial that the AfD was procedurally incomplete. If you were to undo your original AfD close, or procedurally nominate it for a new AfD, I don't think anyone would argue technicalities with you. But hey, this is Wikipedia, and arguing technicalities is what we do here, so I could be wrong about that ;) Thparkth (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your patience and time. It has been greatly appreciated!! LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just try not to prove me wrong. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Who did you discuss this with before unblocking? This is a user that the stewards were in a position of locking on sight, of a years long sock master who was underfed by ANI consensus. I struggle to see what gave you (without community discussion) the impression you could do this within policy. Courcelles (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I did not see a community discussion which resulted in a community ban for the user. The standard offer is generally open to everyone, irrespective of their past history, unless there is a community ban (appealable to the community) or an ArbCom ban appealable to ArbCom). No Wikipedia decision is ever set in stone and everything is appealable. In any case, I would be surprised if this were to last long if LPC starts editing actively (although if I'm proven to be too pessismistic, evreybody wins, innit). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• first edit back to continue a sockpuppet edit war. If I need to go dig out the discussions, I will, but that's enough for me to reblock. Courcelles (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I already warned him that if the content of this edit was still controversial and was reverted, per BRD, not to edit war nt to start a civil talk page discussion to explain his position, and then to abide by whatever consensus emerges. I've watchlisted the page too, and don't worry, I'm more than ready to reblock if necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Not really good enough. Not at all. If it wasn't wheelwarring I would have reblocked already. As it is, the Arbitration Committee has been made aware of this. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Due to a full on edit war, I've re-blocked the individual and brought the case to WP:AN. You may want to comment there. Worm^TT(talk) 21:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have. *sighs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)