This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Anmccaff please stop single-handedly reverting the AfD's closure after opening an ANI discussion. Please instead voice your opposition to the merge on the target article's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As even the most casual glance will show, the article in question was not a part of the AfD discussion. If you wish to discuss this, there's a section started at ANI. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you literally joking? How can you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory and seriously tell me Swampscott dory wasn't part of it? Are you trying to be funny or just stubbornly refusing to look at what's in front on you? AGF prevents me from assuming you're actually stupid so please stop trying to demonstrate it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As multiple people have informed you, ANI was not the right venue. You're looking for WP:DRV. If you've got a problem, take it up there, and stop your reverting in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all, this is just a note to say that in an effort to move forward, I've closed the AN/I and opened a deletion review instead.—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I debated noting explicitly in my AfD closure that "if you think of DRV'ing this, instead open a merge discussion" but that felt like I invited a DRV reconsideration do I opted not to.... feels now like I almost should've. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[1] This edit is not in accord with WP:LISTGAP.

The summary is that, regardless of list type, if you can't copy paste the list indent that you're replying to and have it be the same as your own to the same level of indenture (e.g. a bullet then a colon + bullet is wrong; a bullet then a bullet + anything else is right), then you missed the boat. This is why I fixed it in my own edit prior.

(I honestly don't care if you prefer colons or bullets, but the way you've done it is the worst possible way to do it.)

--Izno (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I tried to fix the existing layout (bullets for !votes and their reply as well) while minimizing core changes to avoid claims of changing intended message. I agree that bullet point for !votes and none for replies is best and is how I usually fix indentation issues. The problem I seem to have with colon-bullet instead of bullet-colon is that sometimes bullets are left-aligned instead of aligned before the text they are with, creating stranded bullets far from their text (dunno if I'm making sense?), and I've never had this problem with colon-bullet (or colon-pound, or colon-colon). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, this revert is pure stupidity, of course he's replying to SMarshall and not to himself, and his reply should be one indent deeper. I just can't be arsed to get into this argument with the guy. Maybe he deserves to be poorly indented. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  That problem occurs because someone creates an actual gap between the lists (as in, list item + double return + new list item at some variable length), also a problem solved by properly adhering to WP:LISTGAP (by e.g. not having double return in the source :D). Basically, the best way to do it is always to copy-paste the bullets/colons of the person to whom you're replying and then add whatever type of indenting mechanism you please. --Izno (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Re [2]. While I certainly endorsed the close (for purely procedural reasons), I don't really see a consensus for endorsing. I'd imagine it's "no consensus" at best, as the editors who commented were only the closer himself, two regular editors (whose opinions were split) and two suspicious (and expected, given the topic area) WP:SPAs whose opinion it would be odd to take into account.– Uanfala (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

... but either outcome would have the same result, which is to say that the RM closure is maintained. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this closure is probably going to get cited (the topic area attracts occasional shitstorms), and then it does make a difference if it's conensus to endorse, or lack of consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully my addendum helps in that regards. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This is helpful. I'd just like to add that your addendum states that my opinion was that the discussion falls somewhere between "no consensus" and "consensus to endorse". That's not what I meant, for me it's a clear "no consensus". – Uanfala (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I meant it as "I agree the discussion could've been closed as no consensus". ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then, what you meant is different from what you wrote. This is wikipedia after all, and the place is full of pedants like me :) – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Salvidrim!!  Paine  ^u/c 09:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Salvidrim!. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Patient Zero^talk 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain what just happened with WP:Project Accuracy? Was it simply moved into the proper space? If so, please tell me how to avoid making the mistake I made when I first created the project. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Accuracy (which is formatted like an article title (no namespace prefix) and thus is located in mainspace) was a cross-namespace redirect (XNR) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Accuracy (in projectspace, with the Wikipedia: prefix). It was deleted with today's RfD closure (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#WikiProject USA) which deleted many such XNRs. The project page itself was already moved to projectspace properly last February. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Atsme I've e-mailed you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In case I may have rustled a jimmy or two, I just wanted to let you know that the edits I made to this page were in an attempt to clear this backlog. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC) (Vami)

Yea, there were two pages I saw you on today so I assumed there was a backlog being cleared. Most of these should indeed have a living=n parameter added. As for cases where the biography covers multiple people, some dead, some alive, I think the default is living=yes and blpo=yes but I may not be the correct person to ask. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the template, the default is |living=no and then |blpo=yes. Not that I would know because I prefer to remove the Biography template from talk pages for lists. Think I'll take better notice of this in the future. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 04:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for delving into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papaursa, it was open for a long time with nothing happening. I was waiting on tagging until someone came along and stated a definitive conclusion, but I see you took care of tagging already. About archiving, it looks to me like you're finished but the two cases are still split. Wouldn't it be better to merge the Papaursa archives into the Astudent0 case, so that everything is in one place, and then put the ((SPIarchive notice)) tag on Papaursa's SPI page? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think it's constructive to go back so far in time and change what already exists. I debated archiving everything under Papaursa despite the conclusions but felt that since the socks would be tagged to a different master, it needed a different case... but also that Papaursa would appreciate a mention in his own archive that a lengthy case concluded with no action for the inevitable next time the allegations arise. I even briefly thought about duplicating the content of the case and have it archived fully under both masters! I don't think there is a clean solution but this is as good as it can be. Both cases are intimately linked together throughout anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you're doing. I don't disagree per se, I think we should make clear for the inevitable next time that Papaursa was thoroughly investigated and was determined not to be linked. At the moment, there are two old cases in Papaursa's archive which relate to the same set of accounts, and there will be the note about referring to the Astudent0 case when that gets archived, while the most recent investigation concerning the same set of accounts will live in a different archive which will also be missing investigations related to that master. I get your feeling about not changing things that are so old, but to me this solution seems just a little bit broken. I respect your judgement of course, but I think it would be better if all of the evidence and conclusions were on one page, for when this inevitably comes up again. There's also an archive at Mdtemp, but I don't think we need to do anything with that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The only case archived under Astudent0 is the only one where an actionable conclusion was reached and blocks were issues; if that wasn't the case I would've left everything under Paraursa. I also like when everything's in one place but on the other hand with the content of Astudent0's archive and the note in Papaursa's archive, whether it's all on one page or on two intimately interlinked pages really doesn't have much impact IMHO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"willing to go the extra mile"

Thank you for contributions to articles on video games including Dr. Mario, for French-English bilingual help, for your work as gnome and admin, for support of "non-textual data" as your user page shows, for being "willing to go the extra mile ...", - Benoit, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You deserve thanks and praise a lot more than I do, Gerda. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious has no "less" and "more", - some get it for their first DYK, some for only gnomish work, - don't compare. Secondly, you gave me lavish praise already in your answer to the question I should not ask every candidate (so says my talk). Thirdly, I just fixed the link to archived content within the link that came with the question, - if you therefore missed me and my flash mob pictured look again (or here, second image) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• shrugs* I don't personally see any issue with asking the same question to all candidates -- it's tradionally been done often and it helps direct comparison. After all, Q&As are intended to inform voters in general. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I did it the last three years, - the point seems to be that I shouldn't ask this question. - I will probably not have to ask many candidates questions this year, because some became ineligible for me, some answered before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I was affixing an explanation/defense of my choice of sources for the article when you posted this article as deleted. The edit conflict blew my posting into cyberspace. Could you please allow me at least one more explanatory post?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If it can reassure you, I do not think anything you could have said (in addition to the plethora of arguments you've already posted) would've changed my closure of the discussion. If you think my closure was not an appropriate reflection of the discussion's outcome (not "if you disagree with deletion"), you're welcome to request deletion review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Good evening.

I am a staff member at Shawnee State University in the United States. Approximately 4500 students study here, and they are serviced by 450 faculty and staff. We have a modern computer network that is open to several thousand people on our campus and beyond.

Recently, four students here, all currently members of a popular course on Alternative Religions, have complained that you, a wikipedia administrator, have been blocking edits from this university. The students have been trying to correct serious errors in an article on Heathenry (New Religion).

This was the attempted edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)&diff=748757165&oldid=748593297

Since they are trying to insert academically-supported information into an open-access article, why are they being stopped?

Thank you for addressing this issue. --Tstrickland (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In order for me to properly evaluate your message, I need to know what led you to conclude I was responsible of involved with the issues you are discussing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your name on the Heathenry (new religious movement) article history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)&action=history

Sorry if you are the wrong person, but you seem to possess authority on wikipedia.

It seems to me that our students here are overreacting, but if they make legitimate edits, backed by the proper academic sources, these should be allowed to stand. --Tstrickland (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My name is not in the article's history. You can check the link you've provided yourself if you want to confirm that. Am I correct in assuming you contacted me because one of your students complained they could no longer perform certain edits, and the block message stated I was the admin who had blocked the IP range in question? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Good evening Tstrickland, I am a clerk in sockpuppet investigations here, and I've recently been involved with an investigation into edits on the Heathenry (new religious movement) article. My role is not in evaluating content but in enforcing and investigating violations of our policy on multiple accounts. While Wikipedia is an open and free-to-edit project, we operate on an editorial consensus model and expect all editors to discuss content in good faith. The user in question participated in a content discussion with more than one account seemingly to create an illusion of support for their position, which is a violation of the policy and not in good faith, and so the user is blocked from editing from any account. Our technical investigation verified to the extent that we are able that all of the accounts were operated by one user, not four. We also permit editors to edit the vast majority of pages without creating an account ("anonymous" editing) however with such edits the editor's IP address is publicly logged. We found that after this user's accounts were blocked, they continued attempting to edit from a small subset of your university's IPs, and so anonymous editing from that subset was disabled. They then persisted in attempting to edit from IPs outside the university, and so we have temporarily disabled anonymous editing of the page. This is a matter of policy enforcement; I cannot comment on the merit of the proposed edit as this is not my area of expertise.

We have attempted to design these blocks conservatively to prevent editing from the disruptive user while not preventing legitimate editing by other users at your university. However, given that your students are attempting the same edit in the same manner as the blocked user, I find it unlikely that they have been erroneously prevented from editing. If they wish, they may appeal this action by emailing our Arbitration Committee or submitting a request to our Unblock Ticket Request System.

--Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when you close a MRV of a RM that hasn't yet been hatted, is there any protocol as to who is to do the final hatting of the RM? I only ask because another editor is questioning this part of the New York RM closure. Is it okay for just anyone to finalize the discussion? Forgive my ignorance of this as it seems to be a rather unprecedented situation.  Paine  ^u/c 03:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand what you're asking about: "hatting of the RM"? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me if I wasn't clear, Salvidrim. "Hatting" is just a term used to describe, for example, what you do at MRV, except that you use collapsed closing templates. At RM we "hat" the closed discussion using ((subst:RM top)) and ((subst:RM bottom)) templates. Also, I have gone ahead and done this (hatted the discussion) at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, so I hope that's okay with you.  Paine  ^u/c 03:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Yes, it's fine for anyone to reclose the RM (it normally stays closed despite the MRV which is why I didn't think of checking the RM after closing the MRV). FYI, "hatting" comes from ((hat)), a shortcut for ((hidden archive top)), and generally carries an implicit notion of collapsing. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the page needs attention that i can't give it. I can already see several uses of "Sawyer's" which is for someone surnamed "Sawyer", not "Sawyers". Can you please give the article some care and attention if someone hasn't already? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to give it a once over, but I don't claim to be an expert in copyediting -- perhaps a real WP:GOCE or WP:Peer Review might give you more complete help. I can't be help but ask, what brings you to ask me specifically? I don't recall editing this article before. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Atsme fixed all the instances of "Sawyer's" before I got to them and after reading through the article nothing jumps out at me as needing fixing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Salvidrim, I didn't find anything glaring, either. On first read, the prose is well-written. I did not attempt to corroborate content to cited sources. My apologies, but I'm too much of a softy to do much more than a bit of copy editing on these types of articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Then I won't ask you to review the article I wrote on Karen Greenlee :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OMG!! Excellent decision, Salvi...I just saw that article and thought "that's the last thing I need." It would be the death of me, and even though being cremated is my last hope of ever having a smoking hot body, I'd have to pass. I tried going back to read it 3 different times just to see if I had a backbone, but the infobox graphic stopped me dead in my tracks. The one thing I do know for certain is that death and taxes are a sure thing, and I imagine that article will hit the million mark as a DYK with the right hook. All you have to do is dig-up a copy editor who has the guts for it...and remember, the only difference between a rut and a grave are the dimensions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I already did get a DYK out of it for article creation (Template:Did you know nominations/Karen Greenlee) and it barely hit 10K. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim!.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Salvidrim!. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:40, 16 November 2016 (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.

—MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

•  replied ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My actual name & Wikipedia Username are the same. Please google "Dr.Niranjan Deshmukh". In Response to unblock appeal #16932, You said that "you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review." I am writing to tell you that my name is the private information in the unblock request. And I don't want to increase the damage to my name by posting the unblock request on my talk page. Someone irresponsible, might write more damaging things on the talk page & then remove my access from the talk page. Therefore I request you consider my unblock request in UTRS only. I would appreciate if you understand my difficulty. This is not a game for me. You are dealing with a real person who has hard-earned a good reputation in real life. User:niranjandeshmukh 106.209.136.238 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've re-opened the appeal and reset it to "new" status and left a note that it should be responded to and processed normally on UTRS as requested. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you 106.209.136.238 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding unblock appeal #16932

My unblock appeal #16932 has disappeared from this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock). I did not receive any email about the result. Please do tell me what happened to it. User:niranjandeshmukh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.146.56 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made sure your appeal is still awaiting processing. It may not appear in the category you linked to because it was previously closed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Appeals awaiting response from blocked user"= I am in anticipation of their judgement

Dear Salvidrim!,

This is in regard to Appeal Number: 16932 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock). I am sorry to bother you again.

Currently my appeal is placed in "Appeals awaiting response from blocked user". But I have not received any question from wikipedia on my email address & talk page. So I cannot figure out what question the appeals committee seeks an answer to. They can write to me on my email address here (Redacted) or call me (Redacted). I request you to please forward them my email address/phone number & a sincere request for a quicker resolution of this matter. I am available for their questions & will co-operate with them. User:niranjandeshmukh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.134.217 (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An e-mail response has been sent to you in the appeal. You are welcome to respond there. Discussion here will not continue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Just because. Pyrusca (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Salvidrim!. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's fine, there's a new logo now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Really sorry, other socks had been trying to vandalize that sockpuppet page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hah, don't sweat it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Salvidrim. I'm contacting you to follow-up on the RfC on userspace protection that you participated in. After a discussion at T149445, it looks like a filter is a better approach to implementing these changes. We're developing some language for a message that editors will see when the filter is triggered. Comments and suggestions on this message are welcome at the talk page. Take care, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm pinging you because of https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=16955. I't been 10 days since the request was turned back to you. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was sure I had responded to the user after Ponyo returned the ticket to me. Thanks for your vigilance! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like one person has created a number of accounts and is commenting mostly-odd-like. I'm uncertain which noticeboard to drop a breadcrumb on to follow. WP:SPI looks the best, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for an editor who hasn't really done anything wrong. Thoughts? Looks like TheFarix noticed as well. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Responding to each other as if they were different users is an attempt to mislead (violation of sockpuppetry), and creating account-after-account is disruptive in and of itself. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SoundWaveGaming. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to file the SPI--I've never tried before and this looked like an open-and-shut case of socking while SPI looks a little intimidating to the new user. But thanks for taking care of that. --Izno (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I just jumped in and filed it in your stead! And while I agree it looks "intimidating" for newcomers, even AGF can only go so far abd pretending to be multiple people talking to each other isn't just "a newbie mistake". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Might have been confused there: I mean "SPI looks intimidating to me and an easy case would have helped me get my feet wet". :P --Izno (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently made a page about Arnie Michael Films and after finding out it was deleted I was very upset. I've also spent 2 days working on this page and to me it just makes it a waste of time. I believe it was unnecessary to delete this article but maybe tweak it because you guys think your so smart. I would like a proper reason of why it was deleted from you personally. I also believe this violates the First Amendment and the of Freedom of Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanjipy (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You might have better luck asking the administrator who performed the deletion, CambridgeBayWeather. The article was deleted as unambiguous promotion or advertisement. Also note that Wikipedia articles are kept or deleted based on our criteria for inclusion (summarized in these core content policies), not based on constitutional amendments in the United States. For example, I'm not in the United States. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Salvidrim!. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Big Jay Oakerson's What's Your Fucking Deal?!, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...))
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't create the article, I created the original redirect. The title should not be deleted -- at best, it should be reverted to the redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for your not winning the election. Thank you for your service. Lakeshake (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't be worry. I'm not. "Relieved" isn't 100% exact but I'm certainly not disappointed. I'm satisfied that the community was able to elect seven competent arbitrators. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry you didn't win - you had my support. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See above; don't be sorry. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry also

that you escaped being elected to 2 years of miserable servitude. I supported giving you what you had asked for. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"I didn't ask for this." ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry x3

That being said, at least all the arguing that comes with it won't burn you out on Wikipedia - that's the reason I've never tried running for it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

_/\_
\  /    I ran for ArbCom and all I got was this lousy Barnstar
 VV

Thanks for running, Salvidrim!! I hereby bequeath this crummy homemade Barnstar as a consolation prize, but as a consolation prize that is off-beat and that comes from the heart - which is essentially how I regarded your candidacy. I assume they may have been understood as dog-whistles in some quarters, but I find your statements that you would be willing to listen to minority blocs (paid editors, losers in various other issues of Wikipolitics) and disaffected current and former Wikipedians (WR, WO, WiA, etc.) to be really refreshing. I place a high value on diversity of opinion and I think the last thing the Wikipedia community needs right now is greater insularity. I do hope you decide to make a run for ArbCom again some time down the road. -Thibbs (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

^ This is quality stuff. Thibbs for Arbcom instead! Who needs Salvidrim!? --Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hah, what a terrifying concept! -Thibbs (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Salvidrim!: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 20:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

Also, sorry to hear you didn't get elected this year. You had my strongest support and I wish you the best of luck should you re-apply next year. :-) 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 20:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Salvidrim !, the article Matheus Soares (DJ) was moved to another article with different subject that was deleted, the subject Matheus Soares (DJ) is unique, can you retrieve the article that was written? RobertCaldwell (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I am appealing to keep the page Matheus Soares (DJ), for being about a famous and remarkable figure having great references like alok, vintage culture, felguk. I am a Brazilian electronic music writer, I wrote the article Matheus Soares (DJ) and I do not like to waste time .. RobertCaldwell (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Great contributor to the American wiki RobertCaldwell (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Some of us are located elsewhere too RobertCaldwell ;-) 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 20:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, Salvidrim!! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I love the fact that because my username ends in an exclamation point, these kinds of messages look overenthusiastic. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a treat S. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I noticed that you had recently declined the proposed speedy deletion of List of NARCh seasons as "page not empty". The page has no notability, sourcing, nor information other than a list of red-linked years. This page effectively holds no purpose. With your knowledge of Speedy Deletion criteria and Wikipedia, what would be the best fit here? Appreciate your response! GauchoDude (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to North American Roller Hockey Championships or WP:PROD it. The parent article needs a ton of cleanup too anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding ((Subst:Xmas4)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 21:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Salv, I read somewhere that Nintendo Power revisits Donkey Kong Land (the 90s Game Boy game) in issue 265 (March 2011). Would you be able to check the citation and possibly scan the page for me? Happy holidays, czar 09:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure! I'll be home on tbe 26th, I'll check it out for you then. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Czar:  sent, sorry for the delay. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed the page was cropped off, it's page 78. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the new RM discussion taking place at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)