User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 33

DISPLAYTITLE

I've removed the DISPLAYTITLE code from your userpage. As stated in my edit summary for my edit, I know code to make it how you want, but if I put it there, it would look like a mainspace article instead of a userpage. Just wanted to let you know. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh, ok. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh, might as well let you know that my protection requests of the message templates was per WP:HRT, not because they are highly visible. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that pages are not protected pre-emptively, unless a template has been vandalised or is highly visible (or there has been an edit war going on) it will not be (semi-)protected. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3AMessage#bottom returns 761 transclusions. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is somewhat irrelevant, considering you're asking me to semi-protect Template:Leave message... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said to semi protect them. Where are you getting me having asked to semi-protect them from? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, you requested full protection; does this make any change? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone added, say, "go fuck yourself" to the end of its text line, then all users using it would be affected, and it wouldn't look nice. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true and that's why WP:HRT allows admin to pre-emptively protect certain templates; it's a balancing test and, in this case, in my opinion, protection is not warranted. By the way, per WP:BEANS, it might be better not to give vandals new ideas... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there justification for semi-protection?

In the past month, I have constantly had to revert edits by IPs on the John de Lancie article. I kid you not, the IPs are My Little Pony fans who keep messing with the lead. I've basically had to revert the same claim in the lead five times in the last 12 days, and before that, I warred with IPs over poorly sourced claims. I eventually gave up on the first one. I'm not sure if there is enough her for semi-protection, but since the reverted edits are coming from IPs, I think that's the only route. What do you think? AstroCog (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine it must have been rather irritating, but I don't believe protection is warranted as yet; though admins have a bit of latitude when it comes to BLP to protect living people, considering that those edits appear made in good faith, I don't think the article would qualify for protection (had I seen the report on WP:RFPP, I believe I'd have replied Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.). That said, this is only my personal opinion, do feel free to request protection on WP:RFPP, if you wish. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I think I'll just wait and see how long this continues. At which point does this repeated edit go from good faith to just plain non-constructive?

There is no general answer to your question... There isn't a well-defined threshold, it's more a matter of perception... I don't know if there are many other editors active on Talk:John de Lancie, but my suggestion would be to discuss the issue and form a consensus there on what belongs in the lead and then enforce this consensus (without edit warring, though), because, for the moment, many of those editors are simply adding that this actor is best known also for the role he played in Friendship is magic, which may be undue, unsourced or even plain wrong, but is not disruptive as such.

Repeated addition or removal of content against consensus should result in an admin semi-protecting, though only for a short period of time at the beginning... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:53, 2 October 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) 14:32, 2 October 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) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Kevin Kooyumjian Page

Hi Salvio,
I am writing in regards of the deletion of Kevin's Page.
Looking at the errors, I believe it is because of no references were given about his history.
I do not have any links about his past, however I am one of his sons. I know about his childhood, parents and why he started playing music ect ect. Originally, I wanted to finish what I started when I edited the second part of the page and go into detail about my father’s life so his fans can learn more about his trials and inspirations
Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to re-open the page. He has a lot of followers and I believe they would want to know about how Kevin begun his journey into music.
Thanks,
-Sean

Hello Sean, unfortunately there are a couple of problems with your approach... Wikipedia has a strict verifiability policy, which mandates that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; this sadly means that we cannot accept your personal knowledge, even though you're Kevin's son.

Furthermore, Wikipedia only has articles about notable subjects — in short, though there are exceptions, cf. WP:MUSICBIO & WP:BIO, this refer to those people or objects or ideas which have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources —. The article you refer to was deleted after a weeklong community discussion we call WP:AFD, where neutral editors discuss the notability of the subject of an article. In this case, it was determined that Kevin Kooyumjian does not appear to be notable enough. As an admin, I'm not allowed to overrule the community on this and restore the article. What I can do, if you wish, if you believe that your father meets our notability criteria and can prove it and if you're willing to create an account, is userfy the page to your userspace, where you'll be able to edit the biography and improve it (and, when you're through, you can ask for feedback on it at WP:FEEDBACK). If you're interested, just let me know and I'll gladly userfy the page for you. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at my user page. FYI the IP is WP:UNID. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome! And thanks for the info! I didn't know that, or else I'd have blocked straight away. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:57, 6 October 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) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want Hide Top Contribs to work

Change

importScript ('User:MarkhuHuman Rights Review Tribunalrd/hidetopcontrib.js');

to

importScript('User:Markhurd/hidetopcontrib.js');

in User:Salvio giuliano/monobook.js! Mark Hurd (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, many thanks for your note! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Apparently File:Somerfield.jpg needs deleting. Regards. --Onewhohelps (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And now it's gone. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

re All Fired Up Tour

Hi Salvio,

You may want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_Fired_Up_Tour&action=history. A redirect you created on 9 July. The article was being restored by an(other) IP editor. I reverted to your redirect to The Saturdays. Regards, 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note! I'll take a look... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

thx

...for blocking Marcobadotti. I really had to constrain myself. Hope I handled this comparably well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you avoided attacking him and tried to follow Wikipedia's rules, which was the right thing to do.

Personally, considering you were in a dispute with him, I'd have avoided hatting his edits on the article's talk page and, perhaps, removing the last rant on his talk page (I edit conflicted with you, there), because that usually results in more drama. But, that aside, you handled this well! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize that... Ah well, I guess blocking him makes you part of the Turkish Muslim third world Al-Qaida troll club, too :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh... I hoped I'd be a "westerner that grew up in a democratic state"... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Divine Deed

Hi. Looks like a vandalism account, see: Special:Contributions/Divine_Deed. (I wonder who Lui leth is [1]) Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree; that looks like a voa-account; however, he's never been warned before... I've just issued a level 2 warning; now I'll be keeping an eye on him and if he keeps this up, I'll increase to level 4 and, then, will block. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to have a few admins up my sleeve for this sort of thing. --GuillaumeTell 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm glad to be of help! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No valid reason to remove

you claim that the section was somehow against "NPOV"..without exactly explaining how or why. You claim "undue" without specifically explaining how or why. No, sir, the POV seems to be yours, (do you live in Italy, and didn't like the verdict maybe?), and with other editors who don't like that these were the facts and points and arguments by the defense. These are not made-up things, or "POV". It's not opinion, but simply documented things. Is it "opinion", for example, that Knox's DNA was not found in the room? Anyway, regardless, in context with that part of the article, about defense arguments, etc, it's warranted and it's very sourced. Removing whole sections willy nilly, because you don't like it, is against WP policy. The WP recommendation is to modify and find other sources if necessary. That was being done, more references and sources put in, confirming it, and it's still a problem for some biased editors, who seem to have not like that there were problems with the "evidence." Please do not REMOVE until there is consensus...even with refs some POV pushers want to remove something that "they don't like". Not cool. The section is sourced and part of the defense points. It's NOT "POV", nor is it "undue". It's sourced and relevant. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia and discrimination against Greek contributors and the Greek character of the city

Dear Salvio,

You have accused me of abusive behaviour against other users and consequently blocked me from editing the article on Nicosia for a 24 hour period.

May I draw to your attention that it is fairly obvious that those three users namely Seb az86556 , Seric2 and Chesdovi are clearly constantly creating a picture of Nicosia as a decadent muslim city that serves their religious beliefs and are all clearly hailing form Turkish backgrounds.

There is a constant undermining of the city´s Greek identity i.e. whenever a Greek flag appears in any single picture the aforementioned users delete that picture instantaneously and prefer to throw in pictures of the flag of "shame" and occupation that is equivalent to a legalisation of a human crime of continuous brutal occupation of the island of Cyprus by the Turkish army.

The Greek flag is OMNIPRESENT in the Republic of Cyprus whether some people like it or detest it but this is the reality and an Encyclopedia that wishes to be UNBIASED should depict the REALITY and not the subjective views of a minority of readers that are furthermore based on extremist religious and nationalistic views. On the other hand, such users do find it appropriate to throw in pictures using the Turkish and the ILLEGAL, yes illegal according to United Nation referendums flat of the non-recognised internationally illegal self-proclaimed state of the so-called TRNC.

It is totally UNACCEPTABLE to have extremist nationalistic individuals, that strategically reached the level of administrators, deteriorating all the time the article on the city of Nicosia, promoting an unrealistic Turkish character and undermining the Greek character of the city AND at the same time having an ADDITIONAL article on "North Nicosia" that is depicting a totally FALSE picture w.r.t the city. The TRNC is illegal, not recognised by any state other than Turkey and some terrorist states that are non-democratic and yet Wikipedia has a page on Northern Nicosia by supposedly administrators that support the unification of Cyprus. This is clearly a major distortion of their intentions and a huge lie in that an individual that pretends to be a neutral aribtrator and a supoporter of reunification cannot have a separate page on Northern Nicosia stressing how Turkish it is and then go and literally destroy everything in the proper page for Nicosia and emphasize the Turkish character of the city, talk about the tension and the division of the city all the time and undermine the Greek character.

This is clear nationalistic and racial discrimination against the indisputable Greek character of the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus and furthermore it is downgrading for the Republic of Cyprus the mere fact that Wikipedia has a site that is CONSTANTLY vandalised by several ethnic Turkish extremists and Wikipedia users support such discriminatory behaviour.

In the light of all of this, I shall stop contributing to Wikipedia as I consider it downgrading for my own self. Furthermore, I do not wish to participate in an "encyclopedic" project that is totally biased and discriminatory.

Marcobadotti (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way! The only reason why I blocked is that you were behaving in a disruptive fashion, had been warned and, nonetheless, persevered. Personally, I have no opinion whatsoever with regard to how the article should look like; I have the page on my watchlist because I happened to semi-protect it in the past due to socking. The topic is extremely controversial and, therefore, everyone involved should strive to avoid drama at all costs or the page becomes a battlefield... Do not stop contributing to Wikipedia: your input is valued. I was most definitely not trying to silence you. As I've said, your block was a consequence of your behaviour and not of your opinions. My advice, if you want to take it, would be to discuss, in a collegial fashion, the issues that trouble you, trying to find a solution; use WP:DR to get a consensus. Just do not resort to edit warring or personal attacks. If you do that, you won't be blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hi, I'd like my rollback privileges back. Since you revoked them three days ago for edit warring it seems fair that you should be the one to reinstate them. Timbouctou (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Way too soon, in my opinion. Your block has just expired, after all. Edit without getting involved in edit warring for some time, first, and, then, I'll be happy to oblige. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had rollback for a long time and made hundreds of non-controversial edits. I made three reverts against an editor who refused to provide policy-based explanations of his edits, I explained my edits in the talk page but found myself talking to a wall. It took you like 16 seconds to take away my rollback rights and now I depend on whatever you think is "a while"? Fantastic. Timbouctou (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Unnithan

I see that you recently weighed in on User:Unnithan1956's talk page, despite which they have just posted this on my page. I am getting a tad fed up of these baseless claims and puerile legal threats. Is there any more that can be done? - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is: I've just indeffed the editor. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure whether it could be construed as an actual legal threat or a vague/generic appeal for someone else to take action, but all this rubbish about paid editing is plain silly. The next few hours should be interesting on my talk page! - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

afd Eugene Castelle

This afd needs to be closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Castelle. --Vic49 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD closed and page deleted. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)