User talk:Salvidrim!/Q4 2014 Archive

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2014
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess NYCSlover is back.
The IP involved made just one edit on List of PlayStation 2 games but is was one of 420 kb! That fits into the common practise of our friend, who had often massive edits including a massive list of links to disambiguation pages (158 by now). What do you think? The Banner talk 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Let me know if you spot more IPs! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will, off course! The Banner talk 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That did not take long. List of Nintendo GameCube games offers 68.194.88.138 and 77.215.149.133 for a check with the usual 67k edits. The Banner talk 09:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ow, for IP 68.etc.: block log The Banner talk 09:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked both, and protected that list. Thanks for your vigilance. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown
I note that you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown as delete, but you didn't actually delete the page. Can you do that? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * *facepalms* ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I get it that I was not able to build consensus here, but does a closing administrator have a responsibility to spot consensus denial? An editor whom I presume to be a newbie is exhibiting ownership behavior with his/her delete nomination, and makes a complaint that in the phrase "I request userfication", the word I does not represent a specific editor.  While WP:CIR, we also don't WP:BITE the newbies.  The editor showed lack of familiarity with the deletion process, and later argues that the WP:5P is not applicable since "we aren't even discussing something that's a part of the encyclopedia at the moment".  There was no dispute that the topic is notable and sourceable.  The only other editor didn't have much to say, but seemed to take a role of channeling the nominator, and I'm pretty sure that his only rationale, WP:STALEDRAFT, is not a valid delete argument when an established editor has requested userfication for a notable sourceable topic.  Thanks in advance for your consideration of my question, and note that I am not requesting a change to your close, Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your efforts to obfuscate your position are unhelpful. Please respond clearly: do you want the article userfied in your userspace so you can improve it, or not? That is a "yes or no" question that you should be happy to answer. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I know where WP:REFUND is, I am aware that you've opened a door to this alternative, and that this alternative gives me an option to proceed against community consensus. I did not come here to ask you to make an administrative action.  I asked a question.  I am not aware of any obfuscation, nor do I know why you'd state that I have made an effort to obfuscate.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The page was already userfied in Mercedesstonewall's userspace. The only way a "request for userfication" made any sense was if you requested it be userfied in your userspace so you could work on it. Despite repeated requests to clarify whether you actually wanted it moved to your userspace, I never found that you confirmed this desire, and thus your "request for userfication" is an impossible, illogical statement. You were asked repeatedly to say what you actually wanted to happen to the page: left as it was at the moment? incubated to draftspace? userfied to your userspace? But as far as I can see, you remained mysteriously vague, only repeating a contextless "request for userfication" that did not make sense in the way it was presented. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've yet to get any useful feedback here. The key quote was not "request for userfication", it was "I request userfication".  Paraphrasing your words, "The only way that the phrase 'I request userfication' makes any sense is if you requested it be userfied in your userspace so you could work on it."  So do we have agreement that there is only one reasonable meaning when an editor says, "I request userfication"?


 * The reply I saw, from an editor I've never encountered before, was "Userify [sic] to who  [sic]?"  Given our tentative agreement that "I request userfication" has only one reasonable interpretation, puzzlement over an unambiguous statement is not within the scope of reason.


 * The challenge then is how I respond, if at all. I came up with, "When I said 'I request userfication', I did not mean 'incubate', 'move to Abandoned drafts', or 'userfy on request'."  My sense is that there is something you find inadequate in this response.  But it contains simple declarative clauses, doesn't provoke ill feelings, and allows room to build agreement.  Is it that replying to an unreasonable question somehow comes across as itself unreasonable?


 * While I am familiar with incubation, I've never before requested that an article be moved to my userspace, so is there a phrase that is to be preferred to "I request userfication"? Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you remain annoyingly vague.
 * IF YOU WANT THE PAGE TO BE USERFIED TO YOUR USERSPACE, PLEASE POST A SINGLE-WORD REPLY: "YES", AND I WILL DO IT.
 * IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE PAGE TO BE USERFIED TO YOUR USERSPACE, YOUR REQUEST FOR USERFICATION IS A NON SEQUITUR, SO PLEASE STOP WASTING OUR TIME AND MOVE ON.
 * Hopefully that is a clear directive, and your reply should be just as clear. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I need to repeat myself, but I will: "No". "No" means no.  I have also explained my reasoning, that doing so would be against community consensus.  The MfD is over.  I have also been clear that I am not here for administrative action.  I find your reply to be out of the context of my questions.  I would appreciate a response to the above questions that I have carefully considered.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The page was already userfied in Mercedesstonewall's userspace. The only way a "request for userfication" makes any sense is if you request it be userfied in your userspace so you could work on it. You have refused to have it userfied it to your userspace.
 * It is already in userspace + you want it to be "userfied" + you do not want it in your userspace = You are making absolutely no fucking sense.
 * Go waste someone else's time. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous post mortem discussion for Mason Brown
We recently had a post mortem discussion regarding the Mason Brown MfD. Given your use of caps, bold, etc., I need at this point to show a good faith response. In case it helps, please review WP:ADMINACCT. When this post mortem discussion started, I was not here to ask you to reconsider your closing or to ask for the use of administrative tools. Not only did this post mortem discussion not lead to closure, it has also led me to reconsider your MfD closing. WP:DELREVD states, "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first." On another talk page, I am pinging you to the beginning of a review. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You stated at least twice in the section above that you "were not requesting admnistrative action". You have declined repeated offers to userfy the article to your userspace. And yet you come back now with this. Are you fucking kidding me? I have now userfied the article to your userspace regardless, in hope that you'll stop wasting my time. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been a through all of this and I still don't understand what he's so wound up about, or how he's still talking about this...  Sergecross73   msg me  15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * *shrugs* Some people think in mysterious ways. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of WT:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown
I noticed that you have deleted WT:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown without providing a speedy-deletion criteria, log link. This appears to be an out-of-process deletion. It is possible that I could get this restored at WP:REFUND, but they might well want me first to discuss the matter with you. If you are ok with me taking this to WP:REFUND, please say "yes". Unscintillating (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You got what you wanted. Move on. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Hehe. The nom was obviously some editor with a grudge who logged out to request nuking CH's userspace; there was some merit to cleaning up, though. Thanks! ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Achievement Hunter
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Achievement Hunter. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please see Draft:Achievement Hunter for the article requested to be placed there instead EoRdE6 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Press Play On Tape
You deleted Press Play On Tape with the edit summary: "(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion ·)", but as far as I can see it was closed as keep (Articles for deletion/Press Play On Tape (2nd nomination)) Christian75 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry! There was a PROD that mentioned the first AfD, and the page's deletion log only linked to the first one; however the talked page linked to the second and the deletion log mentions the second, both facts I have failed to take notice of. I've restored everything and declined the PROD (which was in theory a G4 nom). Thanks a lot for your vigilance! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Celebes crested macaque
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PC is still in effect. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for four more days? --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been close to 72 hours. What's your decision? --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I didn't know you expected any decision from me. The article has been mostly stable since August with only a few sparse edits on Oct. 1st. Why should I extend PC? Leave it expire, and if there are more problems, request new protection. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow
Apparently, shit happened while I slept soundly. Thanks and  for the assistance! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What happened? Sergecross73   msg me  02:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I still dunno who that IP was, but apparently "I want to be a fuck you" is a song. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did the IP...post an unblock request for you, on your behalf, while you were not in fact blocked? O_o Sergecross73   msg me  02:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I... I don't know what is even happening anymore. Are we real? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm confusing you more or not, but I was talking about this one], haha. Sergecross73   msg me  02:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whyy!! Please!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs)

Question
I'm trying to undo something but it says I have to manually do it since AnomieBOT was rescuing something. Is that the only way? See history of Suicide in South Korea. &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 15:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AnomieBot fixed a ref that was broken (oprhaned) after Massyparcer's edit. You can just restore the previous diff (60.242.29.165) if that's your intention. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How can I do that? &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 17:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Twinkle has a "Restore this Version" option; otherwise you can go to the diff you want to restore, "Edit" it, and save it untouched, which should overwrite whatever's current. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 19:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

HE's been evading your block as since you blocked the first IP.— Ryūlóng  ( 琉竜 ) 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

now— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. and now.— Ryūlóng  ( 琉竜 ) 21:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

He has also used too.— Ryūlóng  ( 琉竜 ) 21:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

is latest.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Natgeostar1234
He/she did unexplained genre changes on some Maroon 5 information pages, though I reverted. Can you block him/her? 183.171.181.51 (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , you hang around music articles more than I do, what do you think? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, and its even been my focus moreso lately. While yes, being a WP:GENREWARRIOR is frowned upon, this person is brand new, and has not been warned about genre-tinkering, or even using sources, yet. Looking at some of the edits, the genre seem plausible, and the IP is reverting the additions without an edit summary, so in my opinion, the IP is almost as guilty as Natgeo. Neither warrants a block, but both could probably stand to be warned - Natgeo to not tinker with genre without sources, and the IP for not using edit summaries (and general bad taste for suggesting a block without even trying to discuss the problem.)  Sergecross73   msg me  15:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cross-country skiing (sport)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Cross-country skiing (sport), a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
 * It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 24.212.97.44 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Damián80
Since you participated at Sockpuppet investigations/Damián80/Archive you may be interested in a current thread: WP:ANI. It is suggested in the thread that McVeigh is the same person as User:Chema, who is indefinitely blocked for socking. Sorry I don't understand this, but someone who does might want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Joseph Crabtree.jpg
I suppose if it is a hoax, then the source information is wrong. It looks somewhat suspicious, in which case you might need to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to comment on the PUF. I'm not experienced enough with images to really do anything other than "err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Isil
Hi, can you tell me where the consensus discussion for the Isil redirect is please? Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 24 ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  21:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Np; I also have no objections to the renomination, as the earlier consensus wasn't particularly clear nor strong. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Indian elephant
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * why? Protection requires a reason. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Vandalism comes and goes; there will still be vandalism for the next six months or so. Rare is a good edit on the article by an unregistered person. --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm declining to extend PC because I'm nore sure I can see a reason to and although I trust your judgement, I must still be able to justify actions I pose myself. I have no objections whatsoever if you go on to ask another admin. Maybe, who places the PC a month ago, will be more knowledgeable of the situation? :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Craig Smith
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ministry of National Defense
Thanks for your interest :D &mdash; Revi 06:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I take no credit whatsoever, I was just passing along a message from the person you collaborated with on this project. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I never have thought of WP:MILHIST, though :p &mdash; Revi 08:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone else thought of it for you. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  08:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultra Scope
A tag has been placed on Ultra Scope, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Platinum Lucario (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! That IS a first for me. I've added Rcats and a talk page note. It is not a typo, and is actually a likely search term for the Ultra toys. I agree the target is not perfect and that it should be its own article, or that the other two Ultra toys should be merged into a three-topic article including Ultra Scope, but in the meantime deleting this rediret is counter-productive. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Email
Are you still getting Wikipedia talk page email notifications? I've notived I haven't on like a week... u_u Sergecross73   msg me  20:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure am. Check your Wikipedia settings, and possibly your junk mail? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Billy Christmas
Hi Salvidrim!

I would like to thank you for your help with Billy Christmas. How great that you are a French Canadian! My mother was French Canadian. No, I'm not trying to suck up. I'm just stating the facts. Marcelle Hudon married my father William Christmas in 1938. They immigrated to the United States in 1946 on my second birthday. Back then French Canadian women were told not to teach French to their naturalized American children, so my brother and I grew up woefully monolingual. Thank God, that has changed. Anyway, thanks again for your help. I will try to make my article more "neutral" without taking the juice out of it. I hope you can work more on my articles. I loved what you did to the table. You do excellent work.

Sincerely, Gerry Christmas, a.k.a. "Jud Hudon"

Bangkok, Thailand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jud Hudon (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a pleasure to assist. I will keep a watchful eye on the draft and pitch in if/when I can. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  11:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just leaving myself a wikilink to make it easier Draft:Billy Christmas. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
Thanks for the thanks about Template talk:Article history, were you planning on weighing in there? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely should, eh? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, more participation there would be nice. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

!

 * I don't?, try sending it again? salvidrim@undefinedsalvidrim.net ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems odd for them to have two contributions in March and then suddenly leave this? -- T K  K !  bark with me!  01:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's odd, but I've seen weirder. It may be a little-used sock (legit or not). I'm still interested in reading whatever they wanted to send me. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

banners
The banners at talk:Isil are largely at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The RM was for a redirect page. I think that it would have been better to have turned it into a disambiguation page than to leave it like it is. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  18:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever we think isn't very relevant in theface of the consensus at the RfD(s). :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not disruptively edit the Talk:Isil namespace as you did here. The page had previously been re-targeted as #REDIRECT Talk:Sun and Moon (Middle-earth) here.  A consensus decision was made to retarget as #REDIRECT Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which I enacted here.  Please do not edit against the consensus decision reached.  gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What? The consensus for Isil to redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been enacted and is currently in effect. I simply reverted the mistaken redirect of the talk page, which already has a banner pointing to the new target title for the article, and which has important information concerning the history of the discussions that lead to the current situation. This is specifically as per our policy on talk pages of redirects. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Mentalist (season 7), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTV. 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) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to the noticeboard
You are invited to the noticeboard here. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
-- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Torga's block
Since Torga's behavior was brought up in WP:GGE I added your block under the Gamergate general sanctions admin log at WP:GS/GrG. I also included HJ Mitchell who was listed on Torga's block log. Feel free to modify/delete as necessary. Cheers. Muscat Hoe (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure how relevant it is since the block was made regardless of the discretionary sanctions, but I don't think it matters much either way, so sure... list it there if necessary. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw your addition of Torga's block to the GG/GS sanctions log and I'm of the same mind as Salvidrim. As such since it's a SPI without GG influence, I'm going to remove the logging of the sanction per your "feel free to modify/delete" line. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in theory an important factor, outside of the sockpuppetry and votestacking itself, is that Torga was evading his GS/GrG TBAN with sock accounts, so I guess it could be relevant. I just don't care about it enough either way to take a decision, but I have no objections to having it listed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't know if it was an oversight or not so I added it.  Thanks for cleaning it up. Muscat Hoe (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

DeMarco Murray
Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-sv
A recent edit you made in Template:Lang-sv has left it broken. You introduced a inside a ... block. See for example Nokia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.143.13 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be an issue with the protection tag applied automatically by Twinkle, I tried fixing it, but if you could take a look and make sure it works now, it'd be much appreciated! ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to User_talk:Technical_13 it's been resolved. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FredrickBrennan
https://8chan.co/wiki.txt seems to be definitive proof that he is the genuine Fredrick Brennan. Could you unblock, please? And presumably there is some sort of verified identity stamp that you can place on his user and/or talk pages? --GRuban (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be out. I hope you don't take it amiss that I ask at WP:ANI? --GRuban (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry: yes, I'm not home, and no, I don't mind the AN/I, although what I would've expected would've been an unblock request from the user itself. I'm on mobile and can't review much, but I'll check it out in the morning if still unresolved. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyu
The "new" Nyu Media doesn't use any of the text/info from the G11'd version of the article, so there's no attribution to preserve, at least for that czar ⨹   16:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry if it fucks up your DYK, but deleted histories of recreated articles are routinely restored when they aren't copyvios/G5. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * DYK wasn't even on my mind—I asked because I didn't think it made sense to restore material that was G11'd specifically to be out of the edit history, especially when that material was not reused in the new article and there is no issue of maintaining attribution czar ⨹   20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

UxUmbrella
Per your comments here, you may be interested in looking at the new SPI case against UxUmbrella. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the additional notification! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list