User talk:Salvabl/Archive 6

List of best-selling music artists

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of best-selling music artists, you may be blocked from editing. --Harout72 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Harout72, there is a difference between "the way the list has always been operated" and including it in the "Definitions" section, which is a section that often needs to be referred to for list management. I respect you very much for your daily work on the List of best-selling music artists, but I believe that what you have added has been done without any prior consensus (even when it was being discussed in the Talk page). You simply added that text to the "Definitions" section on your own to second your view. In the past we have had more complex discussions than this one and there has always been a good atmosphere of discussion, and modifications have been carried out after reaching common consensus. Unfortunately, that has not been the case this time. Salvabl (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial kind words, you can simply go over the discussions at Talk:List of best-selling music artists (also in the archives) that have taken place between myself and Politsi and other editors over a period of years, and you will see that my added statements do not introduce anything new. That's the way we have upgraded sales figures, that's the way we have removed lower claimed figures.--Harout72 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not deny that. But there is a substantial difference between how things are usually done and adding it textually to the "Definitions" section of the list, which will have to be referred to in the future. It is a substantial modification, and as such should have been more appropriately dicussed and a common consensus reached (which has been achieved in the past on other more complex occasions, and is the goal in Wikipedia), especially when this matter was being discussed on the Talk page. Salvabl (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, the added statement doesn't introduce anything new, it is simply an extension of the same paragraph. It was added for clarity purposes. Editors that are not familiar how the list is operated tend to drag some of our discussions to unnecessary lengths, and addition of those specific statements can simply do a lot of good for all.--Harout72 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your statement may introduce what has usually been done, but it has not always been done this way (I have added an example on the Talk page of the List), and therefore the fact of adding it to the "Definitions" section makes it become a norm to refer to in the future. That constitutes a substantial modification. Salvabl (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I answered you there.--Harout72 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft categories

Hi Salvabl, just here to let you know that mainspace categories (like Category:Biographical films about Michael Jackson) can't be used unlinked on drafts, only drafts categories can be used on drafts, (like Category:Drafts about Michael Jackson).★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Good day Trekker! I didn't know that. I will keep it in mind for other drafts.. Thank you very much for the information. Salvabl (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Salvabl. I am mildly skeptical about this name change. Time will tell, I guess. But, one way or another, you should not correct (nor "update") the name in other instances as you did here, insofar the naming be pursuant to the cited sources (piped links exist for a reason). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd. I totally understand your concerns due to the recentness of the name's change. If you visit this link to the Spanish Air and Space Force's website, you'll see the name Cuartel General del Ejército del Aire y del Espacio (in English: General Headquarters of the Air and Space Force) at the website's bottom, in the Contact section.

I already knew that the Spanish Air Force had changed its name, but the fact of seeing the new name of the building on the official website is what motivated me to change the article's name. Apart from that, I understand that it is difficult to decide when to modify links and when not to (for example, in cases related to Madrid's 20th century architecture). But there is something that is important to note, the name Ministerio del Aire (in English: Ministry of the Air) is really outdated for this place right now (of course it can (and should) be regarded as an alternative name), because the Ministry of the Air (the institution) was dissolved in 1977 and since decades ago this building has been known as Cuartel General del Ejercito del Aire (in English: General Headquarters of the Air Force), and at certain times I thought about renaming the article to that name, but when I saw the Air Force's website I decided to rename it to the current name. Regards. Salvabl (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, again. Ministry of the Air is just the translation of the traditional Spanish name "Ministerio del Aire", which it is used by scholar architecture-related sources (certainly so in the case of the Spanish name, but also some actually also use the English name too) to adress the building designed by Gutiérrez Soto. AFAIK, it also happens to be colloquially used, whether if it changes its 'official' name from time to time or not. I understand the pressure to update the names of ministries and other government agencies, not so much the "official name of buildings" (which can even be a fraught concept). You may also consider that the encyclopedic interest of the article is purely an architectural one (there is little to none enciclopedic potential pertaining the "non-architectural" side of the concept, otherwise better suited for the Spanish Air and Space Force main article). PS: And of course, in light of the argued rationale for the move (ambiguous title), we can always move it again to Ministry of the Air (building), that is not a problem. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a complicated case. I understand your point of view. On one hand, the Air Force is the owner/user of this building and it can be asserted that they have changed its denomination, even as part of its contact address, so it can be understood that they aim to make the building publicly known with that new name, which would be consistent with the new name of the Air Force itself. By example, since 2010 the name of this article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia is "Cuartel General del Ejército del Aire". We should also take into account the interwikis uniformity (only if possible), as well as the existence of the Agrupación del Cuartel General del Ejército del Aire (in English: Spanish Air Force General Headquarters Group). But on the other hand, you are right when you say that the encyclopedic coverage being given to this building is focused on the architectural side. From here there are several options, one of them would be to expand the article and focus on its military history, or keep only the architectural information and consider renaming. Your suggestion "Ministry of the Air (building)" seems very correct to me and it avoids ambiguities. Personally I am not opposed to it. Salvabl (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Harout72 (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Close of RfC on listing method of best-selling music artists

Hi - I'm kindly requesting that you revert your close of RfC on listing method of best-selling music artists. You are a heavily involved editor on this topic and in this discussion, and therefore it is more appropriate a uninvolved editor or admin closes it (especially given the AN/I filings related to this). I have already requested this at WP:Closure requests. I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with your close but this RfC will have more long-term weight and legitimacy if an uninvolved editor closes it (even if it's the same outcome). I speak from experience as I did something similar at List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States. In the end a new RfC was opened within 6 months and the argument was rehashed mainly because I was an involved editor closing the original discussion. Thanks for your understanding. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for notifying me. I have replied to you there. Salvabl (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• User:Taichi, you might be interested in this too; User:Vgaiyfi is active on the Spanish wiki as well. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Salvabl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I have already explained. I have not incurred in any abuse. I have not used both accounts to participate doubly in discussions or to edit articles. I only created a secondary account because of privacy reasons. As far as I know, that is allowed on Wikipedia. Therefore, I request my unblock, at least for this account, the only one I have used for years. Salvabl (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Drmies, I am replying to you on this account's Talk page since I can't do it on the other one right now. I really appreciate it. I accept any topic ban regarding Russia/Ukraine. From now on, I will not access my secondary account again, neither on the English-language Wikipedia, nor on any other, nor on Wikidata or any other Wikimedia project. I know that it is easy to check if the same IP address is being used by several accounts; the only reason that motivated me to create a secondary account is because I wanted to contribute to the development of several articles related to the recent territorial changes in Ukraine, and I found it convenient to create a secondary account because of privacy reasons, due to the political content of the discussions between users or of the contributions to the articles themselves. Anyway, as I said, I never used both accounts at the same time. In fact, I never once logged into my main account throughout the entire period during which I edited with my secondary account. In any case, I accept the topic ban on my primary account and the permanent blocking of my secondary account, as I have no plans that involve needing a secondary account again since I don't see it necessary for the topics I'm interested in contributing to. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Since the blocking it has been a bit of a difficult time for me. At this moment, what I wish is to be able to contribute again in other Wikipedia articles. Salvabl (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• My previous message was written while the unblock had not yet occurred. Thank you. Salvabl (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • No problem. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

Ukraine, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for disruption and POV-pushing on an undisclosed alternate account; see User talk:Vgaiyfi, where unblock conditions were discussed with User:Yamla.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)