User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 32

Final Destination 6: The Final Stand

Hi Savio, I add more information to the plot, add the references list and I put on External links my profile of Wattpad. PLease reconsider this delete. I'm a puertorican and you don't know how much cost to me to create my first article about my screenplay. If you still see not too much information in the plot is because the script is in production. Thanks! User:FD6TFS ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:29, 18 September 2011

I see the page has already been nominated for deletion, so I fear I can say very little about it... The only thing I want to say is that, even if this page is deleted, this does mean your contributions are not welcome. It's just that Wikipedia requires subjects to be notable — meaning they have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources — before they qualify for inclusion. I fear that your screenplay does not meet the notability threshold; there are alternative outlets, though, if you wish to preserve your article, such as WikiAlpha. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Horse Show Colour article

HI Salvio, Thank you for your concern I dont understand why the article has been deleted as it is not an advert for the product, there is no reference to contact adresses or numbers. The article is bring to attention a new way of colouring horses and ponies for competition which is important for us in the horse industry. Could you please reconsider this article. Kind Regards, Felice

I agree that the article contained no contact addresses or numbers, but its tone was very inappropriate all the same. One of Wikipedia's most important policies is WP:NPOV, which mandates that all articles be written using a neutral tone; an article that reads like advertising copy, extolling the virtues of a product or using marketing terms like "dynamic" and "capable" and "world-leading expertise" to describe a company or something along those lines, will be speedily deleted as promotion, even if there is no "contact us" section. In the case at hand, I'm really sorry to say, but the article read like an advertisement, explaining why this particular product is the best to colour horses there is. Furthermore, there is also another problem; another policy is WP:N, which mandates that a subject must be notable — that is to say, have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources — in order to qualify for inclusion. My feeling is that your product is not notable enough yet. Finally, you seem to have a conflict of interest, here. While coi-editing is not prohibited, it's discouraged; therefore, I feel I have to invite you to read Wikipedia's policy regarding conflicts of interest and FAQ regarding organisations. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

K.h93/SMS Billing Types

Hi again Salvio! :)

As you know, I have been trying to create this page SMS Billing Types for a while as I was looking for the information to help with an article I was writing myself about SMS Billing and for the first time Wikipedia was no help! I have had the page deleted twice and been warned for advertising (not intentionally but now I see what they meant by it!) I was wondering if you could check the page and get back to me with any helpful feedback please! I would like to ensure others have a full knowledge of this. Also before I save the article and it gets deleted again and prevent me getting banned!! :)

Many Thanks!

K.h93 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy in real life, at the moment, so I'm not sure I can get to this in a very timely fashion. I'll try to check your article as soon as I can, but I'd like you to know that, if you don't hear from me in one or two days, it's not because I'm ignoring you. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Salvio,

It does not matter much as Nikthestoned has nominated himself to delete the DRAFT article I made. Surely they cannot delete drafts? Is there anyone that I can formerly complain to about an editor? (Not you!!) You along with the other editors who I have contacted/been in contact me have been fair and the rest, but he feels it necessary to delete my article and not even nominate it!

I have lost all work that I had done as it was rough and in a drafter version. Sorry to rant on your page as I know it is indefinatley not your fault but his. If you could get back to me (in your own time) with the details of the person in charge of editors please (if possible) it would be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks

K.h93 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, while things in your userspace tend to be left alone, from a technical standpoint, everything you publish here is released under Wikipedia's licence, which, among other things, allows other users to modify what you wrote. And, in fact, there are cases when it is appropriate to delete something located in userspace. As a general rule, attack pages, spam and copyright violations are eliminated — even from userspace —, as soon as they're caught. Quite frankly I do not know if what you wrote was a copyvio as I haven't checked; if it was, Nik did the appropriate thing when he nominated it for deletion; if, on the contrary, it was not, you should ask the deleting admin to restore your draft. If you wish, I can send you the text of the page by email, but, please, unless you check with the deleting admin, do not put it back on Wikipedia unchanged. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Grave dancing?

You removed comments from the User talk:Colofac page with the edit summary "rm. grave-dancing". How is it grave dancing for Viriditas to point out to Colofac that it is a little bit rich hearing him complain about vile propaganda when that's all he has on his user page? Have you not visited Colofac's userpage, and seen that he displays the hate template you see above? In normal day to day operations of Wiki, the comment from Viriditas would be perfectly legitimate, to the point, and justified. How is his message to Colofac somehow invalidated because Colofac got himself blocked? Does the legitimacy of the message somehow no longer pertain? Of course it does, so it is hardly grave dancing. I suggest you reinstate the information you removed. I regret needing to sully your page with the obnoxious template, but without it my point would have far less emphasis. Moriori (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Moriori, but just let it go. You and I know that pointing out blatant hypocrisy is not "grave dancing" by any stretch of the imagination, and my comments in the section up above on Colofac's talk page show that I was arguing in favor of forgiveness and reconciliation for the blocked user, and that's something that "grave dancers" certainly don't do. Let's just leave this alone for now, and trust that Salvio will exercise better judgement in the future. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While this message was appropriate and professional — and, quite frankly, I support both it and your removal of the userbox from Colofac's userpage —, I stand by my action. I still think that the tone of your edit to Colofac's userpage was highly inappropriate — Irony is a biotch, really? —, especially considering his block prevents him from editing his talk page, thereby stopping him from either removing your comment or from replying to it. I still consider that edit little more than derision and I believe I was justified in removing it. However, I have no objections to dropping the entire issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New e-mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Onewhohelps (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied.--Onewhohelps (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"their user page"

Thank you for protecting a deceased user's page.

Would you please replace "their user page" with "his user page" when you have a chance? (I am not an administrator.)

Thank you for your help. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done though in a very crude manner... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Harry_Bloomfield deletion page

{{help}} Dear Wikipedia,

Regarding the Wikipedia entry for Harry Bloomfield, Q.C., I would like to point out that he is like many international personalities who have lead substantial and impactful lives without necessarily attracting major headlines. Yes it is true that his run for the Commons of Canada in 1980 was performed as a service to the then Progressive Conservative Party but this service and his life long dedication to the Conservative Party in Canada put him on the Board of the Business Development Bank of Canada for 11 years (1987 to 1998) and as well rewarded him with the rank of Queen's Counsel which is rarely given. Mr Bloomfield also spent 6 distinguished years as a Commissioner of the Quebec Securities Commission, (the Commission des Valeurs Mobilieres du Quebec, 1982 to 1987) at an important time in the evolution of securities regulation in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Bloomfield's accusation by the Elliot Spitzer administration of New York State was a wrong that took three years to right and did result, including many mean-spirited and sensationalist headlines, in complete and total vindication.

Mr. Bloomfield has managed the affairs and is now President of one of the most substantial charitable Foundations in the history Canada - the Eldee Foundation- which has given the funding for the creation of the Lady Davis institute for Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal as well as major funding on the campus of St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada. As well, under his Presidency, the Eldee Foundation has funded important charitable/cultural assets in Israel including the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust (http://www.mystfx.ca/campus/buildings/bloomfield/), the Bloomfield Science Museum (http://www.mada.org.il/en) and 18 vocational training high schools in the AMAL Network in Israel (http://yeda.amalnet.k12.il/amalnet) which provides high school education to ensure egalitarianism in Israeli society.

As well, Mr. Bloomfield has served on numerous Canadian boards of Directors - as you will see from the "Harry Bloomfield" entry which you just recently took off your Wikipedia pages. He is also the Principal of a law firm, former President of the International Law Association in Canada (http://www.ila-hq.org/). It was clear from your comments that the entry had not been correctly framed nor correctly written and I propose that we will now re-write the entry in proper form, which guidelines you are welcome to remind us about.

With kind regards,

Your sincerely,

H. Bloomfield Q.C.

Dear Mr. Bloomfield, considering the page was deleted after a community discussion, what we call an WP:AFD, I'd advise against recreating it in the article mainspace, because it would be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. My personal advice would be to create a draft, as a subpage in your userspace — here, for instance — and, when you're done, to start a discussion at deletion review, so that the article will not be deleted as soon as it is moved to mainspace. If you need help to do this, I'll be happy to help!

That said, regarding the article, the first thing you should check is whether you meet the notability requirements; basically, per WP:BIO, a person can have an article if they are notable, meaning, in short, that they have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If you believe you qualify for inclusion, then you should follow WP:V, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, WP:NPOV, the one regarding the tone you should use and WP:BLP, which indicates what can and cannot be inserted in a biography of a living person. These are the most important policies you should try to follow. There are others, but if you abide by these, you should be reasonably sure your article will not be deleted.

Finally, considering you have a conflict of interest, I'd like to invite you to read WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI; the former is a policy, the latter is an essay, which is meant to provide useful advice, but is not actually policy. If you need anything, feel free to ask. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New e-mail.

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Onewhohelps (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting to it, just a moment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Edwardtbabinski

Hi Salvio. You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edwardtbabinski as "no consensus". Would you revision delete the copyright-violating and BLP-violating revisions of User:Edwardtbabinski per Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #1 and 2? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvios; in principle, I'd be happy to also revdel the BLP-vio you mention, but there is a problem: after closing the mfd as an admin, I blanked the entire page as an editor; so, if I revdel the page up to the last revision containing the BLP-vio, which is the one where I removed the mfd tag, then it would be impossible to access the content of the page (as the only non-revdelled revision would be blank) and I would therefore be violatiing both the results of the mfd and my closure... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for revision deleting the copyright violations. To resolve the BLP violation, would you undo your blanking and remove the BLP violation in the same edit? (Remove both the living person's name and website, as well as the attack on her.) Then, revision delete all the older revisions, and re-blank the page because of the WP:UP#POLEMIC violation. Would that work? Cunard (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The BLP violation was introduced in this edit at 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC). All the revisions between that timestamp and the edit before your blanking contain the BLP violation. Cunard (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that you've proposed it, I can't understand why I didn't think of it... Thanks &  Done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Thank you for purging the BLP violation from the page. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Picker78

Hi, Salvio. FYI, please see here regarding the subject user you blocked. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It appears, however, that they've already been blocked. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Crisis Empire

I've made a redirect here for now, but would you please restore the history so I can perform a merge to where I have it pointed?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Allen J and his Amazin Muzak

You have had a good deal to do with this prolific socker. As far I can see there has never been an SPI, though various groups have been tagged as socks of each other. As he is still active (3 new socks this month), I have collected all the socks I could find and raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Songboy193, so any new infestation can be listed there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You did a great job! Most of the ones I blocked were socks who were quacking particularly loud... Thanks for listing them all in one place and for keeping me in the loop. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand?

You delete my page - I need this page redirected to the authors page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Murr_Nehme#Les_otages_libanais_dans_les_prisons_syriennes.2C_jusqu.27.C3.A0_quand.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demossoft (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 September 2011

Comment from (talk page stalker) - I am not convinced this is a good idea. The result of the AfD was delete, not redirect; also, although the author is probably notable, this SPA user has been inputting such a string of articles about her books as almost to amount to a spamming campaign, and I do not think an NN book is necessarily entitled even to a redirect - see my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Barbara de Baalbek. JohnCD (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with John. The consensus energing from the discussion which led to the deletion of the article was quite clear. The community thought the page should be deleted and not redirected. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Onewhohelps (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Adoption Request

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NotinREALITY 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Salvio, hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WereSpielChequers. It's really nice to see you again!

I've just uncommented my name: I'm honoured you chose to add me to such a list! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single-purpose account

Per the note at the top of your talk page (I have a similar note at the top of mine), I have reopened this MFD. I agree that it's going to be kept but I don't think the nom's concerns should be dismissed so quickly. I have made a comment in the discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite franly, I considered that MfD as pointy as they come, that's why I quickly closed it... That said, I disagree with your reopening it, but I appreciate your note. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)