User talk:Salvidrim!/Q3 2016 Archive

Re

After looking at sources, I think it would be fair to write on the page that work by Klysov in the area of DNA genealogy was strongly criticized and even claimed to be a pseudoscience in a number of publications. Do these publications qualify as RS? Yes, I think they do. However, I would avoid telling that his work in this area is a pseudoscience as a statement of fact. Importantly, his work in another area (enzymology) was very solid science. So, labeling him as a "psedoscientist" in general would also be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

However, based on conversation on this article talk page [1], I think there is at least one contributor who wants to place poorly sourced and completely irrelevant defamatory materials out there. I would rather stop editing this page for now because I have absolutely no interest in the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caroline Hyde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

•  fixed ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2016, the project has:

• 208 Featured Articles
• 70 Featured Lists
• 10 Featured Topics
• 1 Featured Portals

• 27 Featured Pictures
• 1070 Good Articles
• 20 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• WP:VG Talk Page Digest
• Follow-up: Gender Declaration in WikiProject Video Games

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure review by uninvolved administrator

Would you mind taking a look at Talk:JetBlue#Merge proposal and determining whether such a merger may be considered inappropriate? The proposal was closed by its proposer, which is clearly WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, editors in support of the merger did not quote any rationale apart from perceived promotional content, and the merger only included the lead section of the merged article (which, naturally, is unsourced). The article has passed a GA review, which checks for neutrality. Ideally I would prefer this to pass through an AfD discussion, as in my opinion the topic is clearly notable and has enough coverage for a longer article to be written about it. However, starting an AfD advocatig a keep position would cause it to be speedily kept per WP:SK. What should I do? SSTflyer 02:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted the merge and the closure. Although "normal" closure challenge procedure should be to talk to the closing admin, and if that fails, go to WP:AN, I think in this case it's reasonable to do @Ritchie333: a favor and spare him the trek to AN. WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure stresses that uninvolved editors can close discussions, and I have enough respect for Ritchie to AGF and suppose this closure was made in error. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Something I'd Like to Say

I'm sure you know who I am. I say this because you guys just want to believe what you want to believe. Something you might not know is that I keep coming back because I want to get better at things, and you guys will not let me. I try to be civil with things and point out information I feel might be incorrect. But no, you guys just act ignorant. Before you do anything, I did do a further unblock request after my talk page access was removed and I got nothing back. This is why I keep making new accounts. I'm not trying to "vandalize" anything or be "disruptive." I also don't like getting mad. I also don't like being vulgar. It's just that you guys frustrate me to that point. I want to do better. I really do. This can not be achieved with you guys harassing me all the time. It's clear to me that you don't understand what it feels like to be punished for trying to do your best. I've cited my sources and politely pointed out things on article talk pages.

I've also noticed that you've been confusing me with other people. I did not edit any Sirius XM pages or some of the others mentioned. I want to make this clear: I HAVE NO MORE THAN 2 IPs. Not to mention that I don't recognize most of the IPs mentioned. This further proves that your "checkuser" processes are bull. What if Jimmy Wales was still here? Would he like to see "admins" abusing their powers to push around the little guy? Would he like to see his baby be given bad names by people like you?

I hope now that you've understand why I've been doing what I've been doing. I'd also very much appreciate your input on how I can be "good." In reality, you probably didn't even read this and I just wasted my time.

So overall, I'm claiming WP:HOUND on you and your friends I really want it to stop.

Thanks anyway if you took the time to read this. Jtpauw88 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

World of spectrum

As the AfD was intepreted ("consensus" seems to be most often created by "majority vote"...maybe our policies should be updated to reflect that) as "delete" but merge was proposed into ZX Spectrum as resoanble solution, could you please shift the article somewhere (or merge it directly with Legacy) there? thanks Shaddim (talk)

• Only a single editor even said the word "merge" in the AfD and I cannot conclude that there was any consensus to "merge" existing content. You're welcome to take the sources from the AfD and add new referenced content to ZX Spectrum#Copying and backup. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, then I ask you personally, could you please shift the page into my user domain? Thanks Shaddim (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Arcituno

As noted, these were orphaned start-maybe translations from other languages with few edits from outside with a sock master accused of copyright violations so I didn't see any problem with deletion. This is the last G5 case I recall but that was an OFFICE ban and the same analysis applied: G5 supports wholesale and IAR supports restoration on an as-needed basis. As suggested on my talk page, rather than limiting the G5 deletions reviews and restorations to admins only, I offered that I would restore all pages and move them to draftspace without redirect and if any editor in good standing has reviewed the content, they can move it back to mainspace. From there, the further debates can occur if needed or the drafts can be deleted based on G5 or MFD there. What do you think? I'm thinking of suggesting that scheme at the village pump and perhaps we could revise G5 to include that as an suggestion rather than go IAR about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

MonteCristo page

Hi, so I'd like to restore the MonteCristo page, if you're willing. Put it up to AFD again too if need be.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I decided to submit it to WP:DRV, just informing you of this, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeleting XQF?

Hello, I noticed that you deleted the XQF page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XQF citing the reason that it was not being referenced from any other page. XQF is one of the only game server browsers on Linux for Quake-based games and is still available in Ubuntu, Debian etc. Last code additions was about a year ago. It is not dead. Check the homepage here: https://xqf.github.io/en/

DuckDuckGo still shows the missing Wikipedia page as the first hit when searching: https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=xqf

It should really be added to the list of such software here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Game_server_browsers

Hope this software makes it back to Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response.

Xarragon (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, can you provide me with any coverage of XQF in sources independent of the subject, such as media articles? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harmonquest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Davis. 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) 10:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Livelock (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diablo. 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) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

NF Magazine

Hey Salv. You have a subscription to NF Magazine, right? If you do, can you help me with obtaining their review of Mighty No. 9? There's not that many of the Wii U version out there (especially from reliable sources) so it would be helpful to get them on the page. GamerPro64 02:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

From their latest issue? Sure! I'll send them to you tomorrow night. Are Imgur uploads fine? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah they're fine. Thanks. GamerPro64 02:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here you go: http://imgur.com/a/r779z ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, at 6$ an issue or so, you should absolutely consider getting a subscription as well! This is one investment I absolutely do not regret. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not sure. I don't even know if I want to renew my Game Informer subscription. But thanks for the link. GamerPro64 17:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

On first look, I don't see a review score. Does the magazine have a review scale to it? I don't want to base it off the one Metacritic has. GamerPro64 17:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oups, I didn't see it at first at all so it's cropped accidentally -- to the bottom-right of page 68, under the art of the main character, there's the score: 6.0 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User Page Mmuuss93

My User page does not exist! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmuuss93 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay Mmuuss93, I had missed your message. I've created a blank userpage for you, which you can edit by using this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mmuuss93&action=edit ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IP Warning

Could I get you make good on this warning? The IP has continued the behaviour of personal attacks at afd with this comment. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Saying the an AfD constitutes fruitless wikilawyering cannot possibly be conceived as an insulting personal attack. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• You disappoint me, because of course this comment can be perceived as an insult. I would hardly be writing here, if I didn't perceive it as such, nevermind the fact that the essay on Wikilawyering calls it a pejorative term. Or if its not personal enough for you, try this quote from the same discussion: Good luck to the nominator in taking on the wikilawyering WP:FOOTBALL regulars. In light of this the comment I linked above is fairly clearly directed at GiantSnowman. And they've made these sort of comments before. Simply put, this editor seems incapable of engaging with the deletion process, at least as it relates football, without making demeaning remarks about the editors they disagree with. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)I wouldn't have acted on that either. Unconstructive? Misguided? Maybe. But personal attack? No way. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Salvidrim!. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)