Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:44, 7 December 2013

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeratul

I don't think this should've been closed with so few votes; I'd kindly ask you to revert the closure and instead relist the item at AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done, but I doubt consensus will emerge either way. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. We will see. Bet a virtual beer on who's right in two weeks or so? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Meh, merge/redirect looks like a sensible option for content that is notable, but maybe not enough to stand alone. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Yep, I am totally fine with m/r per the last comment, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Closed as merge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit frequency

In response to your support on User:New Age Retro Hippie's RFA, I have to agree that too many people oppose because of this. I do agree that time and edit counts should be a good yardstick but seriously, very few people are able to sit in front of the computer all day without having to worry about real life chores and other duties. Aside from that offices are putting Websense et el on their networks that block the wiki.

I've also have a couple of long wikibreaks (outside the 5 years from start) but I always find some time here and there to do some editing when I good improvement pops up. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It's a small miracle my own RfA passed despite my very slow editing rate and relatively recent arrival (hardly over a year at that time)... and also despite other reasons. I don't remember who said this, but "it's important for an editor to have significant contributions, but past "any", the quantity is irrelevant". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got an eye on RFA, too but I'll wait until I have 5000 first. I do like it when I find other video game editors, though. What is your favorite game? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 09:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I passed my RFA with no real problems, but I found the whole process very nerve-wrecking, and I feel like it could have really destroyed one of my favorite hobbies had it not gone well. (I mean, I'm sure there's people here and there who don't like me, and that's natural, but the thought of an entire community effectively saying "We don't approve of you" is rough.) So, I have a hard time referring anyone to the process. I'm also happy yours passed Salv, or I would have felt guilty. But hey, at least its something you only have to pass once, unless you really mess up as an Admin... Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oy, don't guilt over me Serge. I take responsability for what I get into and I fully expected to get ripped a few new ones during my RfA, so no surprises there! And in reply to @NintendoFan:: There are a few, all on SNES/GBA. If I had to pick just one... hnnnng, let's go for DKC2! But SMW, LoZ:ALttP, FE7, Tetris Attack, all worthy runner ups in their own categories. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Reading your nomination, I like your answer to answer about the AIV question, so you did handle it well.
• I love the DKC series, look out for the one coming out in February. I really enjoy your favorites, too. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 00:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• I tore through DKCR3D, got 200% and all Silver+ medals. ^_^ ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  ...and all the too. I also linked your answer to the AIV question.  :) NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course! Fun fact: I only realized AFTER getting 200% that Puzzle Pieces didn't count! About that answer... do you mean Q9, about UAA? I don't recall any significant mention of AIV in my RfA. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

*poke*

Hey Salvidrim :).

We've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Vidja Games, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Apropos of nothing; thanks again for pointing us towards the VG wikiproject as a place to trial Flow. Let me know how you find it :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of the WP:VG admins, I'd like to be able to see how the tools work on the field with Flow boards. Is this something that is possible to enable on Labs for my account? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that without @Okeyes (WMF):'ing you, you might not see this. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Totally, I'll enable the admin tools now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Not sure if you are referring to me here, but was I being rude, by any chance? Could I have been nicer? I try to get my points across kindly, but sometimes i fail. I'm open to any suggestions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was not referring to you, Someguy1221. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection, reversion, blocking, oh my

I'd like to move the conversation here, if I may, as it's not really relevant to the lifting of Nightscream's block; that's something that probably should've happened, no matter how we got there. My point is this: your first reversion was arguable. I personally strongly disagree with it, as you weren't the one to protect it, standard operating procedure is to not do that, and it violates the principle of least astonishment, which I hold very dear (though occasionally break), but I see where you're coming from, and it's arguable. What I really have an issue with is the second reversion and especially the block itself. Let me be clear here: I 100% know that you were acting in 100% good faith, and that if you had interpreted it as being wheel-warring/involved, you wouldn't have done that. I really am not calling for your head here or anything. But what this looks like from my perspective is that you used your tools to perpetuate an edit war, did it again when someone else did, and then blocked the other party you were edit-warring with. That's badly involved to me, even though there weren't actually content concerns driving it. I know you didn't see it that way (and probably still don't), but in my mind's eye, any time someone reverts someone else more than once, they're edit warring and therefore involved, no matter what the motivations are. Any block that happens subsequently would appear to be an involved block to gain an edge in a content dispute, and we need to avoid the appearance of involvedness as well as the fact of it. As we all know, being right doesn't excuse an edit war, and that includes being right as an admin. Do you see where I'm coming from? Again, I don't really know what my endgame is; I don't think there's any action that actually needs to be taken against you or anyone else (I was considering starting an AN thread just to get second opinions, not to seek any action against anyone, but that would probably end poorly). I just seriously wish we got to this point in a different way, and hopefully, should this happen again God forbid, we will. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Quick note: I'll take the time to read and respond to your message later today, I'm at work currently and I've got to close this week's accounts. Thanks for your patience, I'm not ignoring you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, no worries. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• @Writ Keeper: First of all, thanks for your advice and guidance -- I have a lot of respect for your judgement and I think everyday is an opportunity for learning; your opinion is always very much welcome.

Everything you're saying makes a lot of sense in hindsight (but then again, doesn't stuff always make more sense in hidnsight?). My first reversion, as explained before, was truly misguided and should not have happened. Protecting + reverting to the last pre-war version is something which still requires a healthy measure of judgement (which is why I assume User:OrangeMike wisely decided not to), but waltzing in after the article was already protected and reverting to an earlier version under the pretense that "I would've protected the article if it wasn't already" is an wonderful example of lack of foresight and over-eagerness to slap people with rules, bordering on arrogance. If I hadn't done that, Nightscream would not have needed to revert again, and things would be very different. My second reversion was performed because the edit was a breach of WP:3RR (although re-re-re-reading the policy page now I'm not sure even that is justification for reverting the edit); however, in doing so I failed to adhere to my own self-imposed 1RR and am kind of... disappointed, I guess. I got over-confident that I was doing the right thing just because Nightscream was obviously doing the wrong thing. I'll admit that I don't see it as traditionally-defined edit-warring on my part, as the content of the edits themselves was almost entirely irrelevant to me; but poorly justified reverts aren't exactly better, are they now? But you know what's justified? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.