Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) at 14:25, 23 March 2015 (→Onverse: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 19

Hi Salvidrim! Would you be able to take care of the three discussions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 19 about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Garnet Patterson, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Liisa Ladouceur? SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) wrote that the discussions "remain open only due to the bureaucratic difficulty of there being so few DRV closers active at DRV who have not already commented". This has also been listed at WP:ANRFC for a few days. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the DRVs and AfDs! Cunard (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Done - I don't patrol DRV/ANRFC more than occasionally (even though I should, since I do enjoy it!) but don't hesitate to seek me out personally for such specific requests (as long as you don't make a habit out of it!). :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Cunard and Salvidrim!. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the nice closes in that mess. Well done. - Becksguy (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocking of MaranoFan

Hello, Salvidrim!. I was wondering why you blocked fellow user MaranoFan from editing Misplaced Pages. Replacing JPEG files with PNG files is very common, as PNG files are preferred over JPEG files while uploading cover artworks, as the recommended format is 300px PNG for a cover artwork. Thanks! (Please ping if replied), Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nahnah4 - If you look through the deleted talk page discussions on MF's talk page, the reason why becomes more clear. Only and Diannaa sum it up pretty well here, for example. It looks like MaranoFan was warned many times, so he knew about it, and has even agreed to his block, so I don't see any issues here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, note that the blocking admin is Only. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Tallas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages WHL and IHL (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) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Help, please

I know I'm topic-banned from "gender neutrality of pronouns". However, I need assistance. First of all, an RfC that I started just expired, with no one to close it. Meanwhile, a user is attempting to circumvent the clear consensus against his proposal demonstrated in that RfC by canvassing support for another old RfC, directly below. Would you please solicit a closer for the original RfC, or close it yourself? I don't want to see these tactics employed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a request on WP:ANRFC. I also wish to thank you (a lot) for sticking to what was agreed without raising any fuss, it speaks highly of your dedication to remaining an active contributors as well as your ability to moderate yourself. I am impressed (though not surprised!). :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not one to break conditions that I agreed to, even if they annoy me. Regardless, I have better things to do than mess around with that sort of stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm really upset now. A user has canvassed to a bunch of pages to gain support for his cause. It is utterly unacceptable. This user openly admits to being an advocate of certain styles on his user page. The RfC had been running for ages (25 days), and now, a new influx of editors caused by his canvassing to selective projects like the "Gender Studies" has skewed the outcome. His RfC, in of itself, was inappropriate, as it overrode the earlier RfC. What is my recourse? This is unacceptable. Absolutely and truly unacceptable. Please, help. The wrong result is going to happen, and only because of a user who uses dirty tactics. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• You'd better do something about this, or I'm going to have to make a bit of a mess around here. The closer of the RfC made a total mess of it all, and clearly failed to read consensus. Because a user bypassed the existing RfC with a new RfC, he overwrote consensus. What's more, he canvassed users from selective projects to his RfC, whilst the original RfC was not touched by any canvassing. The original RfC had a clear result against proscribing the gender neutral "he". Most of the users who opposed the addition of the text in the initial RfC opposed proscribing the gender neutral "he". However, their comments were not taken into account, and they were not invited to participate in the second RfC below, which overwrote their comments. The second RfC was mainly participated in by people canvassed by the opener of the RfC from the "Gender Studies" project, and the like. Now, this very selective group of people has changed the MoS completely. This absurd, and if something isn't done about it, I shall raise hell across these pages. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• You will do no such thing, or you will unfortunately be met with escalating blocks as a way to enforce your unblock conditions, specifically the part about being TBANed from "the gender-neutrality of pronouns". I have been lenient thus far in allowing you to talk about it on my own talk page, but this is not justifiable per WP:BANEX, and I advise you to forget about these RfCs and focus on something else, like Ukraine. Don't poison your own peace of mind over some trivial wikipolitics matter and instead keep doing what you actually enjoy. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not trivial. Block me for eternity. I shan't allow dirty players of games to think they have some kind of power to destroy the English language. I don't enjoy anything. I only do what is necessary. If you shan't submit the closure for review, I shall do. Legitimate action must be taken. RGloucester — ☎ 02:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) RGloucester, you're better than that. Please check your {{Ygm}} from me.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions

As one involved in SPIs, can you answer the following questions please.

1. If a checkuser spontaneously blocks a named account as a sock, with no SPI and no other discussion at all, should the blocked account be tagged as "confirmed" or as "suspected"?

2. Should a normal administrator (non-checkuser) blocking a named account ever tag it as "confirmed" when there has been no SPI and no checkuser involvement? 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1. If the Checkuser ran a CU check, they can tag as "confirmed". If they did not run a CU check but blocked without needing it, they can tag as "suspected". They can also not tag at all.

2. An administrator could tag a blocked sock as "confirmed" if there has been confirmation by a CU. Such confirmation is not always made public (i.e.: in an SPI).☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Salvidrim!. That makes it a little clearer. It sounds like a normal administrator should NOT tag as "confirmed" with NO cu input, is that the case? And in what circumstances would the fact that there is cu confirmation be withheld and not made public? 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Some admin help

Hi Salvidrim. I recently brought a discussion over to ANI regarding a user and long story short, the discussion (which is here) got archived without an admin weighing in on a resolution. I tried alerting an admin I generally work with, but I believe they may be off Wiki for a bit. Anyways, I believe there was enough consensus in the discussion to enact a topic ban of all Marvel Comics-related articles for that user. I was hoping you could look at the previous discussion, and possibly complete this action (I know this topic area is a little out of your wheel house, but I believe you've helped me out before on some VG related articles). Thank you for any help you can provide with the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, Favre1fan93. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Hope things are well. I try to keep tabs as much as I can with the happenings in the VG project, but I've lately been spending most of my time working on Marvel Cinematic Universe pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Salvidrim. Thanks for all the help with this. Is it possible for Tre's IP to be blocked to prevent them from creating any new accounts? I was equally surprised by the SPI that there was another account out there, one we didn't even know about. That was relegated to their music interests, while Zzaxx was working on their film interests. Thanks again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I'm not mistaken, his IP should have already been autoblocked, and that is usually set up to block account creation (similar to the IP I'm using now). Autoblocks do expire quicker than the main accounts block, but because regular admins can't view user's IP's, this is what we have to use. (I could be wrong here but this is what I remember being told) EoRdE6 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TreCoolGuy was already blocked with ACB, at least since April 2014, so the assumption is that the recent IPs are not exactly the same; perhaps Zzaxx1's block will prevent account creation for a while. In any case, a handful of accounts over a few months don't really justify blocking a range from creating accounts. We're better off just responding to abuse when it happens at this point, until he starts being more active. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Well thanks again. I'm always on the look out for if they return. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Evasion of topic ban by Zzaxx1

It appears that Zzaxx1 has violated his recent topic ban as seen here and here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Undelete request - Firewatch

You deleted Firewatch in December. It has been recreated (and won't be getting deleted again because it's clearly notable), but the sources are mostly 2014, so it looks like it was notable in December too. Can you undelete the revisions so editors can take a look at the older version? - hahnchen 23:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I did think about that today, and put it on my to-do list to review during the weekend. There shoulnd't be any issues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fuck up Axem Titanium's DYK nom though? Maybe we can restore the old revisions later. It's not like there's an attribution issue, Axem's content is his own. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. You can make that clear in the nomination. - hahnchen 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

Consliens (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I will forward it (minus your private information) to someone who might be able to help you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Accounts

Hi Salvidrim!, let me start by saying that I don't object to any of your proposals but... I can't understand what the problem is (beyond the systematic harassment that I'm suffering from the tandem Kahastok-WCM since I dared to question their politically-motivated removal attempt of a commons file; since then, they have tried to have me blocked, to remove my user page, gone to the Spanish Misplaced Pages and tried to shake the waters again...). Have I used the accounts for any purpose that could be deemed as an abuse? I have openly reported my accounts in the proper place (meta) and haven't ever used them for voting, claiming any kind of consensus... Having said that, I can't see any problem in such soft block (I don't know what a soft block is) as I won't use any of the accounts any more. The only exception would be Ecemaml. Please, leave it as is now. I will report the relationship in my user page. Maybe in the future I will resume edition with Ecemaml, but I haven't decided yet. Best regards and many thanks for your understanding --Discasto (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) PS: I've left a explicit mention about Ecemaml in my Discasto's user page. Is that enough? You can softblock the remaining ones. As stated, it won't be used any more.

• Thank for for agreeing to this outcome, it speaks a lot about you. "Softblock" means they are blocked in a way that will no affect anything beyong the account itself (such as the underlying IP, etc.), to make sure it does not affect your current account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, as said, I just want to keep Ecemaml unblocked. I assume the message in my user page (Discasto's one) is enough. Anyway, thank you to you for your mellow approach :-) --Discasto (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your cooperation. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of BitGamer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BitGamer is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BitGamer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

UTRS question

Hey Salvidrim, you reserved UTRS#13343 back on the 6th, but there hasn't been any activity on it since, nor was it moved to "hold" status. Are you still working on it? --Jezebel's Ponyo 21:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've reserved it accidentally! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Onverse

You closed the deletion discussion with a decision to delete, but the above page is still extant. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was deleted at the time and was subsequently recreated later that year (2013). Some of the content was the same as the deleted draft, but it has since changed. czar ⨹ 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying me -- I'll look at it later. Note that StevePiercell is th e guy I emailed a copy of the article to. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh my god, I think it's the guy who died in a car crash days ago :/ Anyways, the current sourcing seems sufficient for me to think it would survive an AfD, and it's vastly different (so no reason to G4 it). BeenAroundAWhile, you're welcome to start a new AfD if you think it is necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao

Remember you had forgiven a sock puppeteer who was already blocked a few years ago for evading his block? It was known that he was socking with intention and he was aware of WP:SOCK. You thought that he has now promised not to sock and not to disrupt en.wiki anymore? Because of that decision of yours, he passed a strong SPI and continues to sock. Today I am suffering from an unwarranted block when I had made only 2 reverts in 5 days. I had no prior blocks.

What should we do now? I have started another SPI. How would you analyze an editor cannot understand WP:COPYVIO, WP:BRD, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ILLEGIT and tells others to seek for a "higher wikitalk level" for removing any of the violation of these policies? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)