User talk:Salvidrim!/Q1 2015 Archive

Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays, Sulvidrem! I enjoyed working with you this year, and hope to continue into 2015! Hope all is well! Sergecross73  msg me  14:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No reaction?? I guess you only enjoy it when I accidently misspell your name? ^_^ Sergecross73   msg me  23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Teehee, I didn't even have time to do my usual mass-wishes. Been away from home since Dec. 15th. And you know me enough that you don't need me to tell you how much I appreciate our collaboration. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true. I appreciate our collaboration as well. May it continue into 2015 and far beyond! Sergecross73   msg me  23:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Permissions Request
Hi, I'm trying to find Technical 13's Request for Template Editor request from December 2014. Cheers, Nick (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi there bro. I heard there's a tool that scans a set of suspected sockpuppet usernames for having used the same IP address. Do you have that? Could I ask you to check these? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, all three of these accounts are indef'd, and the IP has been inactive for two months, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. Secondly, while I don't personally have access the CheckUser tools, I do clerk for the investigation process that often makes use of it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a long time ago...
... but NYCSlover is back. All the bells started ringing due to an edit on List of PlayStation 2 games and a small check showed the usual 400kb-edit. The contribution list] is further evidence. The Banner talk 00:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, and RevDel'ed the ~400k diffs from the PS2 List. Since it's an IP there isn't much else to do. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Banner talk 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2014
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:HasteurBot
He is now running his bot to remove the category in question from ALL AfC articles, which he was never given permission to do. Administrators' noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs)

An IP you warned
There is a discussion about an IP you warned here, that might evade block, according your edit notice. If there is any details you can add, please do so. The thread is IP adding unsurced material and blanking warnings. The discussion is about the  unsourced edits and disruptive editing of this IP. Thank you. Hafspajen (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Already resolved before I could find time to comment. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mihaela Radulescu official
This user was most likely blocked as possible sock of User:Beleiutz. I remember to have received an information by one of the spotters from ro wiki who also monitor certain articles at en wiki. --Denniss (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the quick reply, I will look into it. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Urya-Oi!!!
I worked on the draft page, and now feel that the contents can be moved to Urya-Oi!!!. Thanks for the help and advice/instruction. Fudobrain (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Note that this does not mean I endorse or have reviewed the conten itself. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... I don't really considered myself involved, all I did was (fail to) clerk the SPI case. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed my mind
Can I get the autopatrolled bit back? NE Ent 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dammit, of course you can. :p ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Supersaiyen123
IPs are not active because he would like to request an unblock. I would like to know that what are your thoughts and what you will be doing next?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll be doing anything next. An unblock request is probably being discussed privately with HJ/CUs (which means neither you nor I are concerned), and if there is IP-block-evasion, they can be blocked then. Blocking a dynamic IP who hasn't edited in days isn't useful. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * may want to hear that I have got a better idea. What if he contribute in sister-projects of en.wiki such as en.wikiquote, simple.wikipedia, commons.wikimedia and more? We will see if he can contribute without causing havoc and unblock any account that he would like to. Agree or not?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask HJ, I know they're still talking things out and he may or may not already have proposed that. I am not privvy to their e-mails (nor do I wish to be, this isn't my case to handle and too many cooks sometimes spoil the broth, rehabilitation and coaching often require a personalized approach). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On being competent at SPI
When someone acts like a WP:DICK, as Troutman did, they tend to attract attention. Please do not assume that everyone who comments on the dickery must be the target of the original dickery. If you want to demonstrate competence at SPI then you should not assume that every IP address you see is Vigilant. Why don't you undo your mistake and show yourself capable of being competent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.103.53 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, big words from an anonymous first edit. You really ought to be a little more respectful when you ask someone to do something. Sergecross73   msg me  03:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out to Salvidrim! that they are fallible. We can see whether they acknowledge it or whether their reaction to any suggestion that they be subject to admin accountability is the usual arrogance from those who preside over Wikipedia's declining active membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.103.53 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware that I (along with everyone else) am flawed and imperfect and vulnerable to mistakes. However, it is clear as day that 92.238.57.40 is being used either by Vigilant or a Vigilant supporter, since most edits are made directly in support of Vigilant. However, it could legitimately be a unrelated editor who simply happens to be in favor of Vigilant's actions, and for that reason, I have unblocked the IP. I did jump to conclusion based on assumptions, and although my instinct continues telling me the IP is likely to be used by Vigilant, reasonable doubt needs to count for something. I'm fairly certain that another admin will block the IP quickly after I have unblocked though, and will not argue against it, but I recognize the validity of your point and do not wish to bear the burden of an action I cannot fully justify. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk airport
I appreciate your protection of the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport article. The other disputant and I have compromised, which you can see at Mr Mitchell's talk page. Could you please implement it for us (I recommend leaving the protection on)? It should replace the first two sentences. Here is the wikitext: "Fighting between separatist insurgents affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Ukrainian government forces broke out at Donetsk International Airport on 28 September 2014, sparking the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, a part of the ongoing war in the Donbass region of Ukraine. This followed an earlier battle over control of the airport in May 2014, which left it in Ukrainian hands". RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I suggest that in the future you actually look at the ANI thread before citing it as a reason to do anything. In the thread, no one in the thread even mentions giving back T13 rollback. Per policy several people agreeing on someone's talk page is not enough consensus to overturn an admin action that was carried out because of the abuse of the tool. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What? In the thread, the admin who originally warned T13 not to war advocated (with emphasis) reinstated said Rollback right. I understand, however, that one person does not a consensus make. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So if you understand that one person does not make a consensus why do you cite it? Also, this lack of real discussion feels a whole lot like wheel warring. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no claim of recurrent misuse of the tool that might have justified a warningless removal, thus I opted to agree with Xaosflux (and talk page commenters) that removing the user right did not serve a constructive purpose, especially when we cannot know beyond reasonable doubt whether said tool was actually used in this specific example. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And given that your block was also undone after review, I judged that the Rollback removal could be considered as being under the same "umbrella" of sanctions, and thus accepted T13's request for its removal to be also undone. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My block was undone when T13 agreed to stop edit warring it was not undone because the block was improper. I would like to remind you that policy states Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. The fact that you didn't think restoring recently-removed user rights without discussion was "likely to be objected to" by anyone worries me. Please consider undoing your action and seeking consensus to re-implement it. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional salting target
Thank you for salting Corporate Finance & Accounting Association (CFAA©) ... may I suggest that you also salt Corporate Finance & Accounting Association, another title that has been used for the same material? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I salted 3 or 4 titles for this content, let me know if there are any I've missed. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrolled by Salvidrim
I got a message that I was patrolled by Salvidrim. What does it mean ? --Frost The World (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most pages, when created, are flagged as "needing review" (just in case something bad is on them), and said review is done by "patrolling" editors. I happened to pass by your userpage and noticed it was still flagged as "needing review" and did not see any problems with it, so I chose to unmark it as "needing review", aka I "patrolled" it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I just got this too, go away you evil patroller. At least I'm not the only one who went 'whiskey tango foxtrot'.FlossumPossum (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I really just do it out of habit: whenever I happen upon a page flagged as "not patrolled yet", I either clean it up, "patrol" it, or delete it (when necessary). :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  08:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange coincedence just saw your name on HJ Mitchell's page linking to a 4 chan thread.. that my edit request appeared in. And then you go patrol me, stalker! ;) FlossumPossum (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Puppet show
It looks like you've been following this one, so ... enjoy! --Tgeairn (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What the fucking shit is this guy doing... logging into other's accounts, evading blocks... what a case! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right?! It's good for entertainment value though, so there's that. Thanks for handling him (for now...) Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude. That was a heck of a close.  Nice work sorting through all that. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, there's a good reason I had to discuss with my colleagues and felt like I needed a second opinion. What a mess! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ...
Like to thank your for listening to my argument. I also need to offer an apology in my statement in that I thought I saw a close. It wasn't when I edited, and I missed that, my slip up. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An easy mistake to make, in the same edit I actually closed/archived the other "subcase" (today's little block evasion), so I get it. I also had worded my reply like shit, which didn't help understanding. I needed to take time to discuss with more experienced colleagues and we ended up making sense of the whole thing in the end. Sorry if I came across as doubting you, but I'm sure you understand interwiki politics are sometimes complicated and we always prefer taking action based on our own local findings whenever possible. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply

 * Miszatomic is the account I use regularly the others are  are alternative accounts. --Miszatomic (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have reblocked (for impersonation). ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for insisting that my Admin Help request templates get removed, and then ignoring (i.e., not responding to) my follow up questions. And, I was told that you sent me to the wrong place. Thanks for your help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You had already been directed to WP:DR. I thought you had issues with the neutrality of the article's content but your post on the NPOV noticeboard was more about the other editors than about the content. Maybe you should just drop it and move on to another topic. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Don't worry, I'm probably one of 's most present, I keep an eye on everything that goes through his talk page. I'm mostly thanking you whenever you edit pages on my Watchlist (mostly Mario franchise articles). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, and I try to do the same for your talk page. And that's how we first started interacting, wasn't it? You basically watched over all the Mario articles in the same way that I do with Sonic articles... Sergecross73   msg me  03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

question
Is is ok if I email you with some concerns regarding a recent comment you made? EChastain (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sent. Another sent for addition. EChastain (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You've obviously put some effort this, but unfortunately, I am not interested. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I misunderstood your user page statement: I vigorously defend and "enable" the infamous hated-but-productive editors. Apologies. EChastain (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think Eric needs my personal help in this case. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Addressing an accuracy"
Bonjour Benoit,

Merci pour ton commentaire au sujet de la construction "address an accuracy". L'anglais n'est pas ma langue maternelle et je veux bien croire que cette construction est valide, mais puis-je te demander plus d'information à ce sujet? Est-ce une expression, et sinon, qu'est-ce que ça signifie? Le premier résultat sur Google parle de "address the accuracy problem", ce qui est clairement valide, mais est-ce que c'est le cas dans la controverse en question ou quoi? Est-ce que le sens utilisé fait partie des - ahem - 15 répertoriés pour le verbe "to address"?

Pour mettre en contexte, j'avais entendu parler du GamerGate, sans trop creuser. Je comprend en gros ce que dit l'entrée, mais même après la lecture de l'article du Washington Post, les détails m'échappent (on parle de 5 éditeurs bannis, puis de 1, ce qui peut apparaître comme une contradiction à première vue). --Chealer (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pour la petite histoire - The Guardian a publié un article parlant de 5 éditeurs bannis, alors que c'était une décision proposée de l'ArbCom -- pas encore confirmé. ArbCom a publié un statement redressant les faits ("addressing the accuracy" of the Guardian article). La décision finale s'est avérée être qu'un seul des éditeurs a été bannis, ce qu'à correctement rapporté le Washington Post.
 * Selon Google, la traduction de "address the accuracy" serait "régler la précision", ce qui est plutôt pauvre; dans ce cas-ci la traduction litéralle de "address", dans le sens de "give attention to", serait "s'occuper de" ou "répondre à"; une expression équivalente pourrait être "redresser les faits", "remettre les pendules à l'heure", ou "rétablir la vérité". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merci pour la petite histoire. Je viens de lire l'énoncé du comité (ce que j'aurais du faire avant), et je comprend maintenant ce qui est arrivé, et ce que la phrase essaie de dire. Par contre, j'avoue que je ne suis pas convaincu de la formulation. Effectivement, la traduction littéralle est boiteuse au mieux. Pour ce qui est de "donner de l'attention à la précision", ce n'est pas faux, mais ça ne me parle vraiment pas. "to address" peut vouloir dire "répondre à", mais si ce qui suit est un besoin, ce qui n'est pas le cas ici. Je suis d'accord que "rectifier les fait", "remettre les pendules à l'heure", ou "rétablir la vérité" décrivent bien la situation. Par contre, je vois mal comment "(donner de l'attention à / s'occuper de) la précision des réactions" évoqueraient le sens de ces expressions. Dans le premier cas, ça sonne passif, et dans le deuxième cas, c'est extrêmement vague. --Chealer (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Désolé d'avance si mon français est rouillé... Je pense que "Addressing an accuracy" est un moyen d'exprimer les événements tout en réservant son jugement sur la vérité des revendications sous-jacentes. C'est important pour WP:NPOV parce que Wikipedia est l'une des parties à la controverse. Si nous disons "Revealed the truth of the matter" ou "Set the record straight" ou même "Corrected these reports", nous disons quelque chose que nous savons être vrai, mais qui n'apparaît pas dans les RS. Je pense que "addressed the accuracy" est le plus neutre. -Thibbs (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:A-class
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games - yeah, we're not supporting A-class anymore, since we don't have a strong definition of what it is, don't really use it (we've been at 42 A-class articles since November 2013), there's a bunch of GAs that are better than half of our A-class articles, and most people don't even stop there between GA and FA. It's not retroactive, it's just that if an article cannot be A-class anymore then its template needs to be updated (class=A now points to unassessed). -- Pres N  21:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the link - I had indeed completely missed that particular discussion. I remember starting an "RfC" about this three years ago (jeez!), but it didn't result in any actionable consensus. I would've personally favored a result similar to option 2 (instead of the effective actuel option 1), but nobody cares about A-Class either way so it's nothing to shake a stick at. You might want to delete or mark failed WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A Class Guidelines, and maybe other pages I haven't stumbled upon? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:70.189.56.157
Back as User:223.85.17.193 BMK (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies blocked it. BMK (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Appeal 12782
Hey - you spoke to RHaworth about this ticket but you didn't follow up either. Could you check it out? https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=12782 .--v/r - TP 04:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you're on, I'm on a marathon to clear the backlog. You in?--v/r - TP 04:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I went back to it every time I went to UTRS but hadn't had the chance to really make up my mind and take a decision. No, it's not a socking violation, but I agree with 's point that unblocking is very unlikely to lead to productive editing. However, in the end, I prefer undoing the "wrong block" without prejudice for a future "right block". Thanks for poking me into action,, and sure, I'll take a gander. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done for the night - we did some good work.--v/r - TP 05:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn right we did. Thanks for making me work, for once, and for helping out too. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ninninger episodes
You messed up when you reverted my edit on List of Shuriken Sentai Ninninger episodes. It wasn't vandalism. I corrected the spelling of February, and intending to fix the date (Sentai doesn't air new episodes on Thursdays, so 26 was wrong) added 7 to 22 to get 29, forgetting that as there are only 28 days in February, I should've put March 1 (whoops). I see this has now been fixed, but you should've corrected the date manually instead of reverting me, as by reverting me, you in fact restored poor spelling and the date was still wrong. Digifiend (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry! All I saw was "29 February 2015" and I immediately thought "this guy must be trolling". Thanks for patching things up! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

More Macy VG IP vandals
Hey, there are two more IPs that keep adding Super Mario Galaxy 3 into the Mario series template and to the SMG2 article: 1 and 2. It is extremely likely they're the same as the Macy VG IP vandal. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They are but I'm on mobile. Please report on AIV with my blessing. Thanks ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nvm, handled it. Thanks for your vigilance. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the SPI open?
WP policy clearly establishes that SPIs cannot be conducted unless there is a strong chance that the user being investigated is actually a sock. Can you please tell me why you haven't closed this case, or, alternatively, explain why you think there is sufficient evidence to keep it open? The only "reasoning" I've seen from you is that, because someone you 'trust' says, with no evidence or argument,, that I am likely to be a Sock, that it should remain open. I am sorry for being confrontational. But admin accountability is atrocious on WP. And you did imply you'd consult with the "SPI team," yet you haven't done that. Steeletrap (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An SPI is just an investigation. Every case is investigated no matter the evidence. Some are endorsed for CU, some result in sanctions, some are rejected as baseless, but there is no harm done by just investigating. If you've been truthful: at best, you'll be exonerated; At worst, the case will be closed as inconclusive. And I did not imply I would consult my colleagues: I explicitly said so, and I will stick to that, and only after will anything be done with the case. I did hope we would get around to it this week, which evidently couldn't happen, but k have faith that we'll have a chance to discuss it over the weekend. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you really looking into the SPI? I'm skeptical. If I were to guess, you shot a brief email to the "team." But no substantive discussions of my case have occurred. Whether the cause of this delay is laziness or real life obligations, I am entitled to a swift resolution of a frivolous claim. Please close this nonsense now, or provide a reason why you think they have made a case against me. Steeletrap (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your user infobox
A thought regarding this edit:

Works? Could be better though. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much know nothing of such syntax, so I've no idea if it would work :p I'll have to test it! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That should work, but if you want to link the timezone then add that:


 * Cheers!

Tgeairn (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!!
I guess I must've messed up on that one, so I'm sorry about that, but I'm just trying to have the title of the page align with Wikipedia's MoS: "the English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   16:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about it, Wikipedia processes are sometimes a bit obtuse. If you want to propose changing the title of the page, you need to follow the instructions to start a requested move discussion. Pages should never ever be moved by copy-pasting their content, since doing it basically destroys the revision history. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS appeal 13133
I responded to your question about UTRS appeal #13133 on my talk page. TL;DNR: no objection. --Yamla (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just wanted to make sure there's weren't some circumstances I wasn't aware of. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey
I just wanted to say thanks for all your help in the UTRS area - it's greatly appreciated. — Ched : ?  08:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No probs! I can be an insufferable lazy slacker but I still enjoy helping out whenever I can!! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like UxUmbrella is back
The quacking is hurting my ears. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vigilance (and sorry for my clumsiness omg) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. I was offline, and my block log was a little too vanilla anyway. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey fellow (French) Canadian!

I'd just like to thank you for being a softie for second chances. You accepted my unblock request earlier and I appreciate it; I won't let you down! :)

 &#124;~ WT ~&#124;  00:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Va, et sois en paix. Just a note, though: your signature really needs to include a link to at least your user page or user talk page. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * somethIng like
 * Could do. Lor Talk 00:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection templates
What page are you talking about? I think I've cleared out almost all five thousand pages at the backlog at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these required fixing, not removal. I have reverted and fixed the two which were on my watchlist. If it's broken, don't trash it, fix it instead. There were incorrect, not inapplicable. Most of the pages were, in fact, still protected, but the protection template was out of date or inexact. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I thought I was doing it right. Looking at Sockpuppet investigations/Willy on Wheels, I screwed up. The twinkle showed it as unprotected (same with this page and I didn't see a notice on the page. I'll go back and review them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, don't worry too much, everybody makes mistakes (and believe me, I've done far worse!!!!!). Sorry for making you work double, and sorry if I sounded a bit too stern. As a fellow gnome, I understand how compelling it can be to clean maintenance backlogs and I have also performed similar tasks while accumulating mistakes before (accidentally deleting a dozen user sandboxes), so I can definitely empathize. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't rely on protection templates at all any more. I just use User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-pageProtectionLevels.js which tells me up in my personal toolbar what the actual protection level of a page is.  The script looks messy because I never finished converting the verbose indicators to the padlocks like I was going to, and I suppose I should make that cosmetic change some time.  If there is interest, I'd also be willing to have it add appropriate protection templates to the top of the pages where it finds the page is protected with no template.  Let me know and we can have a community discussion on that. :) —   14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
Could you possibly look into revoking talk page access for this user? They have already accepted their one-month block and are now using their talk page solely to be disruptive by imposing (and revoking) meaningless "bans". Denied unblock request has also been removed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
A couple of times this week, I've had interactions with you. In both cases, you were polite and helpful. Thank you very much. --Yamla (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
I've sent you a Wikipedia e-mail. Just want to make sure you see it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. It's a good thing you notified me: first-time e-mails often get filtered out (as yours had). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger Craig Smith
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Salvidrim!/sandboxtest
Sorry to go around moving pages in your userspace, but it was an obvious place to run a test. Do you know what the message in question is? I've searched and found nothing, so I requested assistance in the "The page $ already exists and cannot be overwritten" section of WP:VPT. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries! Edokter said it's MediaWiki:Movepage-page-exists, I'll let you toy around with it. :) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

IP
See also: .. there was a lot of pre-my talk at Chillum's page. More than I can sort out at the moment. — Ched : ?  14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 February 19
Hi Salvidrim! Would you be able to take care of the three discussions at Deletion review/Log/2015 February 19 about Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel, Articles for deletion/Garnet Patterson, and Articles for deletion/Liisa Ladouceur? 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)


 * ✅ - 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!   ·  &#9993;  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 from editing Wikipedia. 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)
 * - If you look through the deleted talk page discussions on MF's talk page, the reason why becomes more clear. and  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 . ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Tallas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages WHL and IHL. 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!   ·  &#9993;  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!   ·  &#9993;  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)
 * , you're better than that. Please check your Ygm from me.  :) —   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!   ·  &#9993;  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)
 * ✅, . :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  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. 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)
 * 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(Come Talk to Me!) 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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!   ·  &#9993;  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 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? - hahnch e n 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!   ·  &#9993;  00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that fuck up '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!   ·  &#9993;  02:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. You can make that clear in the nomination. - hahnch e n 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!   ·  &#9993;  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 Wikipedia 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. 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!   ·  &#9993;  16:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, as said, I just want to keep 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!   ·  &#9993;  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 Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at 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 bons mots 21:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must've reserved it accidentally! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  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)
 * 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!   ·  &#9993;  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)., you're welcome to start a new AfD if you think it is necessary. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  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?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always been transparent when I evaded my block in the past due to not fulling understanding the rules back then regarding talk pages (signing off with my own nick is clear indication I had nothing to hide). And this round of SPI is purely frivolous. How frivolous some of the accusations?


 * Yet the edit summary of another editor who also used the exact same words | This article is about Rape in India. There aren't that many ways to express a generic statement like this is about XX article. But I guess this escaped the accuser's notice just because that editor didn't happen to get into his bad books. OccultZone is just unhappy that I avoided the last fracas he was involved in on the article and hence managed to avoid the block wave. So now he's throwing anything and everything at me, hoping something sticks. I'm fully certain the result of the CheckUser will vindicate me, so the question now is, what remedy do I have against a vindictive editor.... Zhanzhao (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the troubles and thanks for your support just now. Will be taking a break. If its not too much to ask, could you do me one last favor? Could you help me delete the following edits and comments ? I might have revealed too much about myself in a fit of anger just now. Don't want to blame OccultZone unjustly if someone does manage to dig out my identity. My self-outing is my fault alone so I may retire my account to prevent this from further affecting me in my real life. If its too much, I understand. Thanks again. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Masu7
I recall that you've been involved in the past with dealing with Masu7 and his various sock puppets. Well he is still going this time under User:GOOnussA, recreating an existing article on Panadura Royall College. Is it possible to get this new account blocked and the pages deleted (again). 06:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody apparently got to it before I could. Sorry! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies. It's just hard to understand why they keep trying to recreate a page that already exists. Dan arndt (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

UTRS question for #13276
Howdy, do you have any additional information on the UTRS request #13276 from User:Munjanes ? If not, I'd like to take over the request. Nakon 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep meaning to come back to it but haven't yet been able to find the time to devote to it. I think a properly researched and presented appeal has a chance of success on AN despite the user's bungled procedure a couple of months ago. You can go ahead and take care of it, with my sincere apologies for not handling things in a timely manner. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nakon  04:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

DeObia Oparei image
Hi Salvidrim. I'm actually asking for help. I'm the one who uploaded the images but want to know how I can upload an image that won't violate anything!! Can you help? I'm a friend of the actor and he asked me to help. He emailed the images to me. Now, obviously I could be making this up but I have no reason to. I also don't want to violate any policies so I would appreciate any advice here. I'm also not blatantly trying to flout any copyright laws. I'm just a newbie at this. I have many images which he has sent me. Thanks TrekkieGeek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrekkieGeek (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You should get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much. I will email him now. I assume he needs to attach a copy of the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrekkieGeek (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignore last question, I found the answer. TrekkieGeek (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The images you attempted to upload appeared to have been copyrighted by Getty Images, not Deobia Oparei, and Getty only licenses images in exchange for very high fees, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's free-licensing requirements. The best option would be for Deobia to take, himself, a brand new picture that he likes and release it under a free license by following the above-mentioned process. I encourage you to post all of your questions at Media copyright questions. Please also note that if you are indeed editing a Wikipedia article on behalf of the subject, you still need to adhere to our policies on conflicts of interest. If you are receiving payment, you must publicly disclose it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will pass it on to him. No payment being received so not necessary. Will read the COI policy now. Thanks for all the help Salvidrim! TrekkieGeek (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I placed a welcome template on your talk page with some links you might find useful. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, will leave you in peace now. TrekkieGeek (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Macy's Vandal
He's back, again. It may be worth adding (indefinite) protection to the Mario franchise template since it seldom changes. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left both it and the Pokémon one intentionally unprotected; the vandalism is not incessant (more sporadic), and it gives me an easy way to spot the IPs and then clean up the other problematic contributions we might not notice otherwise (new drafts, etc.) -- it's hardly a good solution, but it the best I could come up with. Thanks for your vigilance on this one, I had already flagged it for myself later. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)