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 saw that was one of your prospective articles to work on. I'd like to work on improving that one too, so yeah, I'll gladly work on it with you, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I saw you taking an interest in it. Mostly I'm trying to raise stubs in Book:Mario_Titles to C-class level. I'm working on one right now, but I'm keeping an eye on Mario Clash and will assist whenever possible. :) Salvidrim! 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Added some refs. You might want to use {cite web} templates instead of Bare URLs in references. Salvidrim! 03:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the 3DO link, I momentarily forgot that it could refer to both a system and a company. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mwahaha! Don't fuss over it, I run through DabSolver regularly anyways. ;) Salvidrim! 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never gotten one of these star thingies before, (which is admittedly unsurprising given that until my return to this place a couple months ago I wasn't exactly very constructive), but thank you for giving me one! I originally started doing this while hoping to get an outside opinion on one of my previous articles... but after a couple weeks, I was made aware of the bitter reality that nobody seemed to be doing these assessments anymore. I might be new here, but I'm trying to help in any way I can, and I can do these little GA-and-below assessments. I wish I could help out with the A-Class ones (including yours), but I still have zero experience with Featured Articles, and since the criteria isn't as cut-and-dry as GA and below ("approaching FA"), I don't know if I'm qualified to assess those just yet...

Speaking of, good job on getting Dr. Mario to GA. I'm glad to see such dedication even among the increasing lack of interest many seem to have in the affairs of WP:VG. It looks grander than ever now; much better than the C-Class article it feels like it has been so long since was assessed. I wish you the best in seeing that article eventually promoted. Emmy Altava 04:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A-Class and FA are not the same thing. A-Class simply requires that two uninvolved editors Support a promotion to A-class. If anything, it's like a GA+ that most agree on. I'll point you to these two A-Class assessments (1, 2), for example, which are not "in-depth reviews", but simply !votes. Some take the opportunity to do a pre-FAC review, but that's not what I've resquested, as I doubt this article is FA material.

Also, IMO, A-class (as opposed to GA or FA) is more about the article's completeness than its outstanding quality (good for GA & great for FA). I believe Dr. Mario (video game) is as complete as it will ever be, thus believe it should be A-Class. That says nothing about its quality, although of course a minimum standard is needed to even approach any kind of completeness. And despite the "generally accepted standard" that A-Class articles need to be GA first, WP:VG/A clearly states the opposite, and I believe it's for a good reason.

And, dare I ask -- your previous username was "Hammerbrodude" and your current (sig) is "Emmy Altava", in pink/yellow. That confuses me whenever I have to refer to you by using a gender-based pronoun. ;) Salvidrim! 04:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, I have a quick question. How long, in general, are High-importance articles open for comments and consensus before being closed and given the appropriate attributed action? I'm asking because the Defense of the Ancients article only has input from you and myself and I'm curious as to how long we should have it open. DarthBotto _talk•cont 05:42, 06 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'd go ahead and do it. If it is reverted, then people WILL be forced to discuss it. :) Salvidrim! 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, could you do the honors, then? I'm the nominator, so I'd need somebody else to mark it off on the assessment page as approved. DarthBotto _talk•cont 08:41, 06 January 2012 (UTC)

Ofc. Salvidrim! 08:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup ! :) MicroCitron (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Grandement mérité! Si jamais tu as besoin d'un coup de pouce, n'hésite pas. :) Salvidrim! 07:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer the first question, no, it's not. Because it's not a bot; I'm using WP:AWB semi-automatically, so I'm just working through the VG by series category as I have the chance. It just clears up most of the old-style bullets and such with some rough regex find and replacements, and then I do a little cleanup on that output within AWB (you'll note I sometimes forget some of the edits :3).

To answer your question of "how", it's not hard. Basically, if the navbox only consists of groups and lists, all you do is add |listclass=hlist and then format the items in the list as if it were a normal wiki-list. If you want to listify "above" or "below" also, either you can set those class individually (|aboveclass= or |belowclass=), or you can combine those tags and listclass by setting |bodyclass=.

Pull the template into a personal sandbox and have a poke or two. --Izno (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? I know how to use the preview button, unlike some. ;)

Anyhow, thanks, I'll look into it. I'll probably do like I did for the customized templates in my userspace: just copy existing stuff and tweak it to make it do what I need it to do. :p Salvidrim! 01:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh shit, you use the preview button? Why didn't I know that? :P --Izno (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Back when I had a crapton of userboxes, I publicly displayed my love of the "Preview" button. Often I preview stuff so much I end up with inevitable edit conflicts. I'm so commited to not making incomplete edits effective that I've started an edit, hit preview a few times, went to sleep (!) then came back and finished the edit in the morning. Salvidrim! 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This sandbox edit was of info of yours. The same IP is carrying on about being rangeblocked, and making poorly thought out edits on Sonic pages...FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. One of his two rangeblocks just expired today. This one is still in effect. Isn't that ban evasion?Salvidrim! 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a note on MuZemike's page regarding it, as he's dealt with Tailsman before, I believe. --McDoobAU93 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it! Salvidrim! 19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He's now hounding both myself and MuZemike's contributions across totally unrelated articles. I've posted the one-shot warning for using multiple IPs to evade blocks. This is getting old. --McDoobAU93 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if he'll end up indef-blocked on sight, WP:LTA, etc. Salvidrim! 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is approaching LTA territory, but at the same time there's this, which could be what he wants. --McDoobAU93 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons I stopped engaging him directly a while ago. Salvidrim! 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He's trying yet again to prove he isn't who he knows he is on my talk page. I'm sticking to short single responses. Hope a new range-block goes up soon. --McDoobAU93 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This makes me think there's a new range block. Thank you both for helping with this. Sergecross73 msg me 04:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Updated. Salvidrim! 04:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

um there is no need to revert it, I am part of the Inly School — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear (talk • contribs)

I reverted you in this edit because of your addition to an article without a reliable source, and that seemed not to adhere closely to the neutral point of view. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia guidelines.

Also note I reverted your vandalism here. Salvidrim! 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ok i am sorry about the inly one, but how is the other vandalism there is nothing different on the mario page i dont see anything out of line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Infobox, you removed the Publisher field and replaced it ith the non-existant Champion field, with a link to a non-existant article (Brandon Timmone). I'm willing to assume good faith for the moment and believe that was a honest mistake. :) Salvidrim! 02:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

wait you said I put brandon timmone champion into the mario article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's indeed what I just said. Salvidrim! 02:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, that was an honest mistake, I was typing a letter to an old teacher that moved away and i was saying that he was a champion at chess and my sister was trying to take the computer so i might have changed the page, dont laugh but i sometimes need to look at the keyboard so i probably didnt see it and i thought i hit edit accidentely so the damage was done, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? I'm tired of being yelled at for trying to include a verifiably correct fact, and remove a verifiably incorrect one. Instead all I get is stupid notes about "consensus" when there was no consensus on the original form in the first place! I read the entire talk page and found no discussion of the topic, yet I'm required to get consensus before I change it. Why does the first person to edit a section own it until a critical mass of people want it to read differently? What rational reason is there to assume the first person there was most correct? The reasonable assumption would be that the first version is *least* likely to be correct, due to haste, an immature body of sources on the topic, and, in the case of a video game, the writer likely having written the article before actually playing through the game.

I told them the source was wrong, I mentioned where the correct information could be found in the work, and all I get is "Well, that's the source, so it stays". If that's how wikipedia works then there's absolutely nothing wrong with me changing all the geology pages to reflect Flat Earth journals! After all, they're written by university trained geologists and subjected to peer review, which is actually better than the majority of things you people accept as sources!

Furthermore, it is not my comment on his page that is inappropriate, but the behavior on which I was commenting! How can you possibly overlook a blatant conspiracy to shut out a user who was "pissing him off" by doing something which is supposedly inappropriate for the *sole purpose* of trolling a user he didn't like? How can you leave a senior editor in place who views "pissing him off" as an offense which requires no further explanation before the so-called offender is ignored and manipulated into silence?!? That's completely ridiculous; if you intend to give me a talking to every time I question a blatant abuse of power, than simply ban me, because I won't just shut up when I see that kind of thing happening.

So perhaps instead of bawling me out you could suggest how I can cite this simple and patently obvious fact in a way which won't get reverted by some asshole who thinks the page is his personal property. Because there is no external scholarly source for the information I'm trying to include, but somehow a god damn *review* which includes a patently *wrong* fact is a bullet-proof source in the absence of any other. It's ridiculous. I'm sick of getting nothing but nastygrams from you people. It's not helpful. Stop automatically defending the guy with the longer edit history and tell me something besides what NOT to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.134.91 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not defending anyone. Please stop flailing wild accusations around, and there is no need to be so agressive. The fact that you perceive another's behaviour as innaproriate (whether you are correct or not) does not entitle you to act the way you've done. I am not expressing an opinion on the content dispute you seem to be embroiled in. I tried to explain to you what made your behaviour innapropriate -- no more, no less. Take the advice or don't, that's entirely up to you.Salvidrim! 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, taking the advice is not "up to me". Because everytime I dare to get upset at someone reverting every word I write, or criticize someone for abusing their admin rights, I get a flat-out barrage of passive-aggressive nastygrams from people like you. I'd rather actual aggressive than passive aggressive; I'm weird that way.

So don't couch this as some optional thing; either I kiss ass and don't speak critically of any other editor for any offense short of a literal real-world crime, or I get harassed and threatened with banishment constantly. Some 'choice'.99.173.134.91 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a way to voice your concerns without aggressivity. And as I've said before, the actions of other editors do not entitle you to behave innapropriately. Unless this discussion turns into something civil, I'm afraid it is not going anywhere helpful to anyone and thus should not continue. Salvidrim! 16:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also recommend reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies and standards and whatnot. Perhaps if you knew them a little better, you'd understand what people are trying to tell you a little easier... Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Father's Canadian so I guess there is a love of ice hockey born into me. Should really go for either Calgary or Edmonton because he comes from Alberta but when I went on a holiday to Canada when I was ten the first team that I was introduced to was Montreal so I became a fan. My love of ice hockey has grown ever since. Salavat (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to know! I'm not a diehard fan, but Hockey certainly is cultural over here. :) Salvidrim! 07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it mostly; you needed DiSPLAYTITLE:, not DISPLAYTITLE|. It won't work with an !, though- haven't figured out a way around it. --PresN 15:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :D Salvidrim! 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about those NOT on Commons?--Gaming&Computing (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't you upload it on the German Wikipedia (the same way you would upload it to the English Wikipedia)? I'm afraid images aren't the area I've worked the most with, for all intents and purposes I'm a novice when it comes to media work on here. Salvidrim! 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. I'll ask the other guy again.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"The other guy" watched both his and mine talkpages, and so do I anyways. From what I know he's not much more experienced with images than I am -- maybe you could try over at the Help Desk. Salvidrim! 23:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating those redirects, I really appreciate that. I don't get too much help on here.. heh. I believe that a task-force is probably a bit improbable as there's not too many people willing to work with these specific types of articles. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! As I've said before, I'm not terribly interested in the contents themselves, but when I can do a bit of quick, technical work like that, why not. :) Salvidrim! 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you non-the-less. Those redlinks were actually where I had mis-spelled the article names. If you ever need any help with anything please, let me know. =] I don't mind helping out when I can!

Forgot to sign Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the content, I'm not really interested either but I'd rather it be more strict in inclusion, you know? Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate the barnstar. =D so thanks, again! Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't thank me -- you more than deserve it. Salvidrim! 00:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I was trying to fix the redlink before you got to it, heh. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well theres plenty of games set in Canada aren't there? No need to rub it in, just because Australia has never had a game set in it.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be passive-agressive. I've no wish to engage in a discussion with you as to the where video games are set. Salvidrim! 04:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being agressive I'm just telling it how it is. Well if you have no wish to discuss this then why did you start up a talk page?--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To hold civil discussions that aim at improving Wikipedia. Salvidrim! 04:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

hey can anyone join Bliizard (talk)

Did you just get asked a question in barnstar form? O_o Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Would seem so. Also seems to be the third edit of the user, and the first one not in his own userpage. Would you mind elaborating? Can anyone join what? :) Salvidrim! 01:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; feel free to "use" me like that, it's the whole reason I'm an admin- I don't spend a lot of time doing admin duties, I'm mainly just "on call" for WP:VG needs. --PresN 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks, then. :) Salvidrim! 06:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.71.47.189

Sonic edits, Azurik edits, frequently misspelling the word "vandalism". Not sure yet, but I wonder... Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's made it painfully obvious that he is in fact Tailsman, he totally slipped up. Right after my above post, he added this to his talk page. Keep in mind, your talk page is the only place I've mentioned this suspicion, and if he wasn't Tailsman, he wouldn't have any reason to have come to your talk page and see my comment, or know who TM even is, as he hasn't directly interacted with you under this IP yet. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, might've missed it otherwise. Still supposed to be rangeblocked, thus evading... reported to the blocking admin. :| Salvidrim! 06:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see action has now been taken. Thanks for reporting it! Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And again, by the way. That particular IP is blocked for (I think) 4 months. Salvidrim! 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he got the 4 month block before I even noticed he was active this time. But that's good, I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but it's clear that he just wants to cause trouble when his rationale for not creating an account is so he "can't get permanently banned"... Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion about it at Talk:List of Metal Gear characters - going for 4 years (see the "Split" section" back in 2008, as well as the 3 latest ones since last year), with no one voicing anything against it, and everyone agreeing, just no one doing anything about it (so at last I did). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. I've replied on your own talk, where I've first posted. Salvidrim! 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And what I can do about it? See this talk page - I'm leaving there messages since September 2011, that is for almost 6 months now (the first was question, cite: "So I'm asking, should I try to do it, or maybe just add the reception here or something, I don't know.") - and NOBODY is discussing anything with me there, at all. So what I can I do, but communicate this way? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I also proposed them at Portal talk:Fictional characters (with the reception listed, I removed these sections since then after restoring the articles but you can check in the edit history) - also several months ago, also nobody responded (and some people post there). So it's a total communication breakdown, and these 2 guys are just usupring the right to keep these articles from being recreated, I don't know why. Also I recreated several other articles in the recent months (listed at Portal talk:Fictional characters#READ IT) and I had no problems about them with anybody, just the MGS ones are special for some reason, or maybe rather: no real reason. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See, I'm going to go ahead and apologize honestly. I admit I hadn't looked at the history behind this (only the history on the Hal Emmerich article); it seems you've indeed tried to engage in discussion more than once. I also thank you for remaining relatively calm and civil in explaining the situation to me! I will make sure Tintor2 is notified as needed if he reverts the unmerge that a proper discussion needs to be held. Also, and that's purely a suggestion, some editors are less willing to engage in discussion with anonymous IP users. While I condemn that behaviour, you might want to look towards making an account, since you seem really interested in the project (and not a random passerby editor). :)Salvidrim! 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

T2 is normally a pretty cool guy, he's contributing to such articles more than anyone else "and doesn't afraid of anything". It's only in this case and I don't know why. I think he knows me too. I think it was just a minor misunderstanding of some kind, it's not even like we've been really edit warring there you know. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Have you tried engaging in discussion directly with him, on his talk page? Salvidrim! 17:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He only reverted me once and I think the other guy has ceased it already, there's really not that much of a problem. T2 did some great work with the related articles such as Solid Snake and such and I really respect him for that, even if this was not apparent in my previous posts. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I may have jumped to conclusions a tad quickly from the seemingly irate edit summaries. Hopefully everything works out. :) Salvidrim! 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; just trying to help! :) Salvidrim! 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of video games featuring Mario, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compilations and Ports (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :D Great to know the work is appreciated! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I notice the cartridges are FR/EN bilingual... are these canadian? :) Salvidrim! 02:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the RPG games are Mario game. I think there should only one temp for all the games, but if consensus is for otherwise then I don't mind having separate ones. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This template is about Mario (franchise) as a whole, and by extension the main NavBox for the Super Mario (series). Template:Mario role-playing games is the NavBox for the role-playing games; just like with Template:Mario sports games, Template:Mario racing games, Template:Mario puzzle games, etc. Also note you had added the two games in the list of games in the Super Mario series, which they are not a part of. Salvidrim! 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible in every respect. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, though. :D Salvidrim! 04:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) - X201 (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am still not entirely convinced this was done maliciously... there is a possibility the editor genionely thinks they are part of "one big series"; though that would still put whether they possess the needed competence to be an editor in question. Salvidrim! 09:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think that's a possibility, but the lack of communication and the repeated replacement of the Mafia Series article yesterday weigh in as negatives. - X201 (talk)

"Lack of communication", eh? See the diff I posted at WT:VG... seems to have brutally dissipated what little WP:AGF I still had! Salvidrim! 09:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I typed that before I read the Mafia Series talk page. - X201 (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe... oh well. We'll see if he keeps at it. :) Salvidrim! 09:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please beware of copying the edit summaries of other editors... some misguided editor may grow suspicious of socking. :P Salvidrim! 09:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now deleted Mafia series. I don't think your original tag as {{db-hoax}} was really correct. Miss-guided but not a deliberate attempt to fool. --Salix (talk): 12:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the unheeded repeated warnings and profanity posted in apparent retaliation, I believe it would quite a stretch to call this "not deliberate". I'm not in complete disagreement that {db-hoax} was perhaps not ideal, but I was unsure which tag was preferable. Salvidrim! 12:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help out. I also think it would be a good idea to work on the previous games in the series while we're at it, since they're so similar to one another, and would help locate where the differences lie. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, not a bad idea. My goal right now is to de-stub all Mario games; Start, or C. But mostly de-stub. I won't all make them GAs (at least not immediately) like with Dr. Mario. :) Salvidrim! 11:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page, MaxAMSC denies that this and this are his, but that of his colleague's. Since I don't know whether a request would be in line with frwiki's policy, I don't know how to proceed.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I know nothing of fr.wiki's policies. You might want to try contacting a bilingual fr.wiki admin for advice! :) Salvidrim! 03:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Think about it, more or less 200 computers with the same IP address... --MaxAMSC (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I will make it clear at this point: I've no wish to engage in discussion with you, Max. Any further messages not directly related to improving Wikipedia through editing will be ignored. Salvidrim! 03:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently his university needs a rangeblock because they're using improper software to evade IP address blocks; as a CheckUser on my own wiki I know that something needs to be done. Still I hope this can be resolved without dragging him to WP:ANI (especially not on both wikis).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

His university's software

I think of the following situations with that software:

• Changing to a different IP address in the university's system:
  • Rangeblock the organization, hard.
• Using a VPN:
  • Tune our anti-proxy bot to check if VPN is being used.
• Using TOR
  • Reactivate our anti-TOR bot
• Forwarding to an open proxy:
  • Block all involved proxies.

I think MaxAMSC is clearly WP:NOTHERE judging from his comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Chinese wikipedian and also like to play Dr. Mario. The article is really comprehensive, and I learn many knowledge (development and reception) , I also translated it to Chinese Wikipedia :-)

My country China have no organization (like ESRB etc.), and your summary not shown completely, so I don't know what I do wrong...

As the CERO shown that "Dr.MARIO & パネルでポン" (Dr. Mario & Puzzle League) and "ファミコンミニ　ドクターマリオ" (Famicon Mini Dr. Mario / Classic NES Series: Dr. mario) are both A rating, and NDS, Wii have no rating.

So the A rating is for the two series, not for Dr. Mario?

Thank you!--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided (this one) shows that:

• "ちょっとDr. MARIO" (Dr. Mario Express) and "Dr. MARIO & 細菌撲滅" (Dr. Mario Online Rx) have A ratings.
• The other two games, "Dr.MARIO & パネルでポン" (Dr. Mario & Puzzle League) and "ファミコンミニ　ドクターマリ" (Classic NES Series: Dr. Mario) had some other rating that I cannot identify, but that is clearly different from the "A rating"; I believe this is the icon for "no rating": here's a slightly larger version.

Hope it clears things up. :) Salvidrim! 13:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm... I think rating_na.gif might means "N/A" not A. And cero_all.gif shown kanji "全年齢" (全=All 年齢=Age)--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? So the icon with a big letter "A" is not the A-rating, and the one with no letter is the A-rating? How confusing. :p

Though reviewing this page shows that cero_all.gif is the "previous" all-age icon; so you'd be correct on that point. I do believe rating_na.gif would be the "current" A-rating icon (as per the B, C, etc. ratings). But then again, I don't know Japanese, so.... :) Salvidrim! 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for translation at WT:VG. I do believe you're correct about the "All" logo. I believe that when it comes to rating_na.gif, "na" stands for "New A", not N/A, since it uses CERO's new system. :) Salvidrim! 14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you are right. My computer only can shown nb's and nd's icon, na's and nc's display nothing... So I think "na" is "N/A"...--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Calabe1992 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

SW has been recognized as the official repository of all out-of-scope video game information that may not be contained on WP for several years now. The edit to Super Mario Bros. 3 was to replace the SW link which was mistakenly removed. Please do not revert these edits, as this issue has been vetted several times now, and with every challenge, SW has always been considered acceptable. We do not consider WP to be a link farm, and we do link back to WP as we always have. Thank you for your time and efforts. Plotor (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs)

I would appreciate if you linked me to the discussions where "this issue has been vetted several times now, and with every challenge, SW has always been considered acceptable". Also notice I've only reverted one of the edits: I am not objecting to the addition of SW links, but this revert was in response to removing an EL and replacing it with one you are directly affiliated with, which understandably raised concerns. I will however apologize for hastily tagging it as vandalism. Salvidrim! 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the concern that the link replacement generated. It was not my best judgment to replace the link which I believed originally replaced the link to SW, I should have simply added it back without removing another. The discussion I'm referring to largely revolves around this discussion concerning the validity of the SW template's use. Other instances have taken place, but at the moment, I can't perform a deep enough search to illuminate them. Plotor (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs)

Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to explain. :) Salvidrim! 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Dr. Mario, I added an explanation for changing "doctor" for "physician." --MaxDawsonC (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that User:Willsnoogbaroots‎ used the IP address present in the history to modify Dr. Mario? That's what I thought when I saw this user's behaviour on the article... Earlier, I requested a Checkuser to two administrators with Checkuser rights, but nothing was done. I was told to build a case on sockpuppetry (which I believe is not part of the problem right now...). I guess knowledge may come with experience! --MaxDawsonC (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt possible. WP:DUCK applies rather easily; out of the blue an editor comes in and reverts something that had never been the topic of much controversy, and after two reverts suddenly an account created moments ago comes in and does the exact same reverts? Seems to me like it is an obvious attempt to avoid having to abide by WP:3RR. Both have also removed warnings from their talk pages. Salvidrim! 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

True. I actually reverted one of the edits concerning warning deletions on the user's talk page. By the way, I think I reverted more than three edits in a 24 hour laps... because of the other user's unconstructive edits. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm wrong. I just checked and I reverted only once on Dr. Mario. The other times, I edited "manually." --MaxDawsonC (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting means making an edit that undoes a specific change, not only rollbacks and undos; manual edits certainly aren't different from any other edit in that regard. In fact, you've only reverted two times (08:48, 24 March 2012‎ & 09:49, 24 March 2012, UTC-5), which were "reverts of a revert", basically reinstating your initial edit. Technically the 11:08, 24 March 2012‎ edit would count, and an Admin could certainly sanction you as such; however by that time, the page was under SPP, the other editor was blocked, and you had the discussion backing up the re-instatement of your edit, so I do believe it was okay. Of course you might want to clear it up with an admin, just in case the editor decides to "lash back" with a report of this possible 3RR violation. :)

I deleted this page to remove some inappropriate information that identified an underage users whereabouts elsewhere on the web. I went ahead and restored it with all of his on-wiki activities and the IPs he has been using on Wikipedia. Things like youtube accounts, wikia accounts, ages, and the city are not appropriate. Consider migrating this to WP:LTA or request a formal community ban. You may also want to ask the checkusers if the information you're keeping on wiki is useful or unnecessary. AniMate 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)!

This has been used in the past for the purpose of neutralizing the recurrent vandal by admins & CUs such as User:MuZeMike and User:NawlinWiki. As mentioned on the page, it only contained information publicly released by the user himself. The age and ethnicity can indeed be removed as they are mostly irrelevant, but I strongly object to the off-wiki accounts (especially the wikia account, as it is mentioned often by the user and used to coordinate disruption in at least one occasion) as well as the Pensacola, FL GeoLoc being removed; these have all been publicly released on the Internet and assisted in combating this particular vandal. As for the suggestion of an LTA report, successive range-blocks have been the option chosen; in the words of MuZeMike: WP:DFTT. I will wait for your reply before re-adding the crucial information that was removed. Salvidrim! 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Why don't you ask MuZeMike how crucial this information is? He and the other checkusers are the ones who will be dealing with range blocks and checking IPs. Also, this is a minor. We don't need to give people a map to track his online activities. AniMate 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your points. In any case, the link to his Wikia activities is known (even if not currently posted), and GeoLoc can be determined simply by comparing to every IP he's used in the past. So far on the current IP he has not given reason to ban, and this time he's not "back before another range-block expired". I guess we'll just keep an eye out on how the situation evolves, although with edits like this, hope for reform is not very high. Salvidrim! 01:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through the history and he's clearly the same person responsible for a great deal of disruption. I went ahead and blocked him for a week. We'll see if he leaves now that the identifying information has been removed. AniMate 01:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with the block -- while the past actions are undeniable, he's "served his time" and has not (that I can see) given reason to block again. Salvidrim! 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He's a serial disruptor, and since he's not here to improve Wikipedia, I don't want to give him the chance to cause any more disruption. If he wants to ask for an unblock so he can work productively, he is free to do so. For the record, he's defacto community banned. When checkusers are throwing down 6 month IP and range blocks, you're not welcome here. AniMate 01:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: unless you clearly object, I will quote you on this de facto community ban and will hold it up as a complete decision. Salvidrim! 02:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. You can also quote the 6 month range block he is currently evading. Sheesh. AniMate 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No offense. I just want to make sure there will be no trouble with upholding the decision you've made. :) And as stated elsewhere, I stood unaware of that particular range-block extension. Salvidrim! 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The most ironic thing is that he might've been able to stay "under the radar" if he hadn't taken himself to Jimbo's page again... ah well. :| Salvidrim! 02:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I missed all of this, but it looks like Tailsman has gone and gotten himself blocked yet again? I'll never understand his persistence to cause trouble coupled with his habit of gravitating to the worst possible place to do it. It's like he escapes from jail just to take a leisurely stroll through police headquarters to steal paperclips; he accomplishes nothing, and is caught instantly. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a highly amusing analogy! In any case, it would now seem that he will be unable to come back at all. If only he used his obvious dedication towards better goals... Salvidrim! 14:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Salv I'm back my 72 hours have passed(for some reason my Ip has changed as soon as the block was released :( ) and now I'm on the side of good, editing for a cause,but I came here to clear somethings up with you in hopes of friendship,heck I might change what I do on the WikiA,but mostly I came here to say sorry and I was a jerk a real jerk,and promise not to call you names,also need you to help me on this track to good for better goals.:)74.163.25.91 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, AniMate banned you from Wikipedia indefinitely and entirely. If possible you might want to lodge an unblock request on your own page and/or appeal to him by e-mail, but as of right now, your very presence on Wikipedia constitutes ban evasion, I'm afraid. Salvidrim! 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that you're still under a range-block until 27-Sep-2012. Salvidrim! 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh man,well bye until who knows.74.163.25.91 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You can always try to reach me outside Wikipedia if you're genuinely interested in rehabilitation, but I will make no promises. Hopefully a few months of pause will give you time to think about the situation. Salvidrim! 16:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:(74.163.25.91 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)