User talk:Salvidrim! - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images
 

Hello, Salvidrim!. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

  • Yo V, I still haven't received anything from you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
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)Reply
Sent. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Salvidrim! See this edit, an update which you made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/114.167.178.175. Wouldn't archiving an SPI report normally produce a clickable link to the archive? In this case, the archive is present but there is no advertised way to reach it. I might try to fix this if I knew how. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: Generally, when you see this phenomenon, you should do a purge and the link will pop up.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)These things happen -- easily fixable by purging the page (which I've now done). Purging can be performed via quicklink in a few toolsets like Twinkle, or by adding ?action=purge&forcelinkupdate=true after the URL. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Bbb23, yesterday I responded to this question on your talk page, and now you respond to it on mine... soon we'll be so fused that we'll be indistinguishable from one another. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I doubt it. I'm not anywhere nearly as colorful as you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Bbb23, that's a compliment I had never gotten before. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

 

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)Reply

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)Reply

(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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

  • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Little does Salvidrim! know that we will elect him regardless of his personal choice... MUAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. --Izno (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
It's more ArbCom & rest of life being mutually exclusive czar 04:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Good morning

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