User talk:Savh

Archives

---

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Welcome to my talk page

Feel free to leave me a message here. Alternatively, you can e-mail me.

Confirmation discussions

Dear Savh,

As you probably know, the confirmation discussions for Stewards have been closed. In order to determine the outcome of these discussions, you are invited to comment on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2016 before scheduled closure of the confirmation section "one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards" (Sunday 6th of March, 17:22 UTC), though the closing time might be extended at the ElectCom's discretion for an extra week if it is believed "further input is required before concluding". All stewards are welcome to comment, including those newly elected.

For those who ran for confirmation, consider revising comments regarding you, and replying to those where appropriate. Savh^ñ 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Savh. Savh^ñ 08:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

huh?

Why did you delete my user page and talk page? I am not under any kind of ban and that is unreasonable. I don't want to be under any ban but have in the past overstepped the mark and been topic banned, but there is no discussion anywhere for me being banned, no disucssion of it even started. That is a bit WP:TRIGGERHAPPY. Certainly I disagree with people, that is why I participate in deletion discussions, but usually friendly ones. Why did you ban me and delete my page? I leave the negative feedback on my page, the positive feedback I tend to delete (I am so wery umble, as Sam Weller or Sam Veller said in the Pickwick Papers). There is little point attempting to reply because you deleted not only my user page but my talk page (and I know WP:OWN). That is just ridiculous. SimonTrew (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

hi savh

Do you a steward?Murbaut (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

gl.wikisource Banjobot 2.0

Me encargo. Saludos y gracias. --Agremon (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Block

I have been posting articles on Wikipedia for several years. Currently, my desktop is Blocked. Here is the message 

Start of block: 21:45, 9 May 2016 Expiration of block: 21:45, 9 May 2018 You can contact Savh to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 209.222.121.27, and the blocked range is 209.222.64.0/18. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

Not clear what is going on or how high to end the block. Need help. Thanks 

Bejrisch

The IP you indicate seems to be part of a range of which many IP's are sources of spam, or have been abused as proxies. The IP range had been already previously globally blocked from February 2014 to February 2015, and the same spam activity had reappeared recently. However, it is not our intention to block legitimate use, so I have reduced the block only to affect anonymous users. While logged in, you should have no problem editing. Savh^ñ 20:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikinews vandalism

• Why was my vandalism report deleted? This is still an ongoing issue which has still not yet been resolved. I have posted additional information on the issue here: "user talk:Brian McNeil#Wikinews block." NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because this is not the place to complain about a block on wikinews; please follow the appropiate local procedures. Savh^ñ 09:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately there is no local process. As far as I know, there are currently only two active admins on Wikinews: user "@Pi zero:" and user "@Brian McNeil:." Last year, there was only one active admin on Wikinews, user "pi zero." When user "pi zero" first blocked me last year, I attempted for months to contact every admin I could on Wikinews. The few that did reply only did so to inform me that they were no longer active on Wikinews. Wikinews is the least-trafficked of all Wikimedia domains and unfortunately is apparently too small of a Wikimedia project to be able to self-govern effectively without global oversight from the Wikimedia Foundation. I still have not heard back any reply from Brian McNeil. I really need a global Wikimedia admin to overturn what has happened to my account on Wikinews. Both blocks on my old and my current Wikinews accounts were performed by user "pi zero" in violation of written Wikinews policy: "wikinews:Wikinews:Blocking policy." My only "crime," as it were, was to place redirect links on my old no-longer-active userpages to my current userpage, so that users would know that I was the same contributor. For this tiny number of edits (one edit per page to place a redirect on each), and only on my own userpage, I was permanently blocked twice on Wikinews, both times without any warning or attempt at discussion with me, in violation of written policy. NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • We will not overturn what has happened. We are certain Pi_zero's decision is based on something and covered by local policy. Savh^ñ 08:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
        • That is what is so very frustrating, the fact that that is certainly not true, and in fact the block is in multiple violation of the written policies for Wikinews. I love the Wikimedia philosophy and fully endorse its policies. However, these smaller Wikimedia projects like Wikinews have administrators who blatantly ignore those printed and public policies, with no oversight available to countermand such actions. The actions of "pi zero" are in clear violation of at least three of the written policies for Wikinews, as I have documented here (with relevant text copied below): "user talk:Brian McNeil#Wikinews block."
        • text copied from Brian McNeil's talkpage: "…the bottom line is that it is irrelevant whether the reasons that user 'pi zero' had for blocking me were right or wrong. The action of blocking me (both in 2015 and again in 2016) was done A) without any warning to me, with no attempt at discussion with me before the block, and B) was a permanent block preventing me from making any edits on Wikinews ad infinitum. Both the way that the block was conducted by user 'pi zero,' and the type of block that was performed, are violations of written Wikinews policy: 'wikinews:Wikinews:Blocking policy.' According to official policy, user 'pi zero' should have A) attempted to contact me to discuss any edits that they did not agree with, and if I was indeed being 'disruptive' (which of course is not true), then I should have received only a block for less than 24 hours. User 'pi zero' has never performed any of these actions that are outlined in official policy, and in both instances I was permanently blocked without any warning or discussion. Any type of block is a seriously drastic action, and to be performed in clear violation of written policies, is an abuse of administrative privilege. The only 'disruptive' user here is user 'pi zero' for disrupting the news by preventing me from contributing to articles for merely the minor matter of attempting to place redirect links on my old no-longer-active Wikinews userpages. NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)"

• The length that the block has lasted without being corrected, and the amount of discussion surrounding it I think inflate the issue to seem more than it is. Again, the only action that I ever took on Wikinews, and the only reason that has been stated for the block, is the fact that I placed redirect links on my old no-longer-active Wikinews userpages (a very small number of edits, and only within my own userspace). If user "pi zero" had a problem with these small number of edits that were placed for the purpose of consistency of authorship, then according to official Wikinews policy, user "pi zero" should have opened a discussion on my talkpage about it, asking me either to remove the redirect links, or to find an alternative solution perhaps that would be consistent with the goals of Wikinews (for example, I did not know about soft redirects until recently). That was the first violation. If user "pi zero" had indeed contacted me, and I refused to listen or to discuss, then again according to official Wikinews policy, I could have received a block, but not one lasting for longer than 24 hours. That was the second violation. The third violation was when user "pi zero" then proceeded to edit my userpages without my permission with misleading information, which is generally considered to be an act of vandalism. NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Please also note that user "@Pi zero:" is now actively deleting my comments from talkpages here on MetaWiki. This is very unprofessional in my opinion and even if just limited to their own talkpage, at least borderline vandalism. I have copied the deleted comments to: "user talk:Brian McNeil#deletions by user "pi zero" on MetaWiki." NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this absurd campaign which will not succeed; not on my talk page or on any other meta talk page. If you're blocked on wikinews, then maybe it's time to find something better to do than annoying other people. Proffessional or not, we are all volunteers, and you are simply annoying now. Savh^ñ 13:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Hi, here I want to become a bureaucrat, but the process isn't started yet. I haven't any idea about proccess. What should I do after this stage? Vuzorg (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you were declined my bureaucrat request. May you open it again? Because we have scrutinised it on Zazaki Wikipedia, we built consensus about that my bureaucrat request is favorable and it's on voting process on Zazaki Wikipedia. Thanks. Vuzorg (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The request has been denied and archived, and based on the community support (only one vote) I doubt any steward will grant bureaucrat access - but should you hope that, feel free to file a new request on SRP. Savh^ñ 08:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Note

Hi Savi,

I trust you are fine. I left a note for you here. Looking forward to your response. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

wikimedia-admin

Hello. As a sysop at betawikiversity, I'd like to access #wikimedia-admin^connect. My IRC clock is @wikimedia/Stang. Please help me, thanks in advanced. --Stang 02:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, apologies for the delay. Savh^ñ 19:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hi Savh, i'm not able to edit articles from my business laptop either if i'm log with my account. Can you unblock my account or maybe block only anonymous users from this ip (87.98.211.66) ? Thanks

--Ced13005 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Cédric

The block is set to affect anonymous users only, and considering it is a OVH hosting range, it will likely remain blocked. Please let me know if you encounter issues editing while logged in. Savh^ñ 00:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Today, i've the "open proxy" message when editing who prevent me from editing. I give you the blocking ID : #3845409 --Ced13005 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP you indicate, 87.98.211.66, is in a range that is only blocked for not logged in users. It can't be that editing from this IP is blocked while logged in. Savh^ñ 08:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

hold with renaming users

I didn't noticed that mail indeed, I've got an inappropriate username block review so handled its renaming in a hurry. Sorry about that.--Kegns 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I actually don't expect everyone to read the mails, and that's why I let you know. Savh^ñ 20:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

46.119.0.0/16

Hi Savh, I noticed that you globally blocked 46.119.0.0/16. This is a range of en:Kyivstar, Ukraine's largest mobile operator with 25 mln mobile users. There are many Ukrainian users on this range (I found at least 5 very active Ukrainian Wikipedia users in good standing) and it is very likely that users of this provider will want to register to Wikipedia (we had received complains of one user who wanted to encourage someone to create an account). Thus it had an effect pretty much similar to what a block of /16 Telefónica range in Spain would have... Could you please lift this block as it seems to have significant negative effects? Thanks — NickK (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the block for now, since I'm on mobile. I will check more thoroughly wheter a smaller range can be blocked. Savh^ñ 10:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems I mistakenly blocked this range, I am sorry for the inconveniences. I have also removed the block on meta which I had not removed. Savh^ñ 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, please check if there is any significant users on a range before blocking it next time — NickK (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I usually do, together with quite a few other blacklist checks. I must have intended to block another IP range, or something else went wrong in the process. Savh^ñ 20:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cxfan2013 in Chinese wikipedia.

Hello, Same, I Guide Cxfan2013 from Wikivoyage, I want to apply for IP block exceptions to rights, can it?→来自维基导游的用户Cxfan2013^{talk to me}

Please do so at SRGP. Savh^ñ 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Saludos

Por ejemplo; la imágen original está en inglés , es correcto usar paintbrush para traducirlo al español?, le habría cambiado los colores o usar otro tipo de línea en algún programa y también usar otro tipo de letra, esta imágen está pixeleada [1] por qué no fue trabajada en algún programa de vertor, se vale trabajarlo en otros programas pero copiarlo de la fuente no es correcto, el pixelado es obvio. O tú sinceramente si crees que no hay plagio en estas imágenes? crees que si sean de la creatividad personal de este usuario? [2] vé el fondo, ni siquiera es una fotografía de una cámara porque no aparece el modelo de la misma, hasta se ve gris y ampliado en paintbrush o en algún programa sencillo de Office, pues necesitamos ver esa tesis allí mensionada para ver que no igual al original. No es por molestar a nadie, pero la calidad de imágenes no denota una creatividad personal del usuario, de algún lugar salieron esas imágenes (como el caso de la que está en inglés) y es obvio que no corresponden a wikipedia como una fuente original, con esto doy por terminada la discussion, que tengas un buen día.--Marrovi (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Enterado, gracias por escuchar.--Marrovi (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Te dejo el mensaje de esta persona, ahora que muestre la imágenes orinales, para compruebe que no ha cometido plágios obvios, esto no es Wikia para modificar con paintbrush imagines que no salieron de la creatividad de esta persona, hay programas de diseño en los que él puede dibujar imágenes sin necesidad de plagearlas de los libros.--Marrovi (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No tiene comparación alguna, aquí está la fuente original [3] aquí hay otros mapas

[4], esta es mi imagen[5] la cual no viola ningún estatuto establecido de commons, no es escaneo, ni está pilxelada, ni se necesita modificarla con paintbrush, que no se confundan las cosas, plagio es plagio.--Marrovi (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Imágenes

Hola. Por el interés mostrado me dí una vuelta por Commons, no me sorprendió nada lo que vi en tu página de discusión. Acerca de las imágenes que te han causado duda (sé que no tengo ningún compromiso ni necesidad de explicarte, lo hago por cortesía) son dibujos hechos por mi mismo, como claramente lo específico en la descripción, un proceso que no tomas en cuenta (además de las fotografía) y es el que usé para subir las imágenes, fue el escaneado, de ahí que se vean pixeleadas. Los mapas están basado en documentos (códices, crónicas, etc.); elaborados de manera idéntica a tu imagen de comarca Teotlalpan, por lo que creo que no tendrás ningún inconveniente en realidad con ellos. Saludos. --Akapochtli (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Es bien cierto que yo no soy una buena persona, pero tampoco creería en una persona como esta que hace este tipo de comentarios [6] (no hay porque lastimar a nadie cuando se hace lo correcto, eso no lo compro, no es justificación, y además va en contra de la lógica), que inventa un doctorado en la Universidad de Bekerley para ganarse la simpatía de usuarios ingenuos [7], y la corrección que aquí hice es porque no existen la lenguas nahuatlanas ni las lenguas nahuanas [8](si no me creé, usted mismo puede buscarlo), ese fue su argumento para que canceralan de manera definitiva mi cuenta en Wikipedia en español. Wikipedia es una enciclopedia, no es un lugar para hacer política de la más sucia (de la que lamentablemene le han seguido el juego o han caído en la ingenuidad), solo porque no está de acuerdo con los demás. Ya no pretendo seguir con esto, es por salud para todos, pero si me sigue provocando es persona, me va a encontrar.--Marrovi (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Aquel que pregunta humildemente se le guía cordialmente. Aquel que pregunta para usar la palabra de los demás a su conveniencia no es digno de ninguna respuesta. En un mundo como el nuestro, hacer lo correcto es visto como mal. Cuando tratas de no lastimarte, terminas lastimando a otros. Cuando tú estés en lo correcto lo aceptaré; cuando yo tenga duda del tema lo mencionaré. Pero cuando yo tenga la razón no te atrevas a desafiarme pues no dudaré en aplastarte con todo mi conocimiento.

Espero ya no se dejen llevar por esta persona, que a simple vista ya los timó. Bernard cayó en el juego de Akapochtli, dandole indicaciones para que realizara el bloqueo siguendo los pasos de Akapochtli, almenos yo lo veo como una tomada de pelo de manipulación obvia.--Marrovi (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Tengo una nueva molestia

Yo sé que esto no es un foro, ni que este es el medio para hacer denuncias (estoy bloqueado de forma permanente en Wikipedia en español), eso me lo acaba de decir hace un momento, pero aquí hay un usuario nuevo de nombre Icegamma3 (sospecho que es un títere para atacarme [9], pero no tengo pruebas de ello), me dice vandalo y el mismo argumenta que es nuevo en Wikipedia y pide ayuda a Gastón Cuello [10]. No hay lógica de llamarme vandalo si se supone que es usuario Nuevo y mucho menos existe la lógica de pedir borrado de páginas si no conoce como editar en Wikipedia, es raro que actue de forma directa en un artículo que yo había creado.--Marrovi (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

¿Qué se procede en estos casos?.--Marrovi (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)