User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 38

thought

Hi - Its really has got undertones of a pantomime - did you see Malleus's response to your - (unblocking for the limited purpose of responding to an Arbcom request) was (Please restore the block, as I will be taking no part in this farce.) - now what? Youreallycan (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest ignoring the request as he can not participate unblocked just as well as he can not participate while blocked; this would give him the opportunity to more gracefully change his mind. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw it, but I considered it venting, which is quite understandable, considering the situation, so I chose not to reblock Malleus, so that he can always change his mind. If he edits anything outside of his Arbcom case, I'll be the first to block, but, until then, I'm not going to hold his frustration against him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no reason to re-block , but you have to see the farce. The blockee is unblocked and refuses to take his part in the panto and the focus of the arbitration moves to the admins actions - (the wicked sisters}. haha. Youreallycan (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI I've granted his block request, as I took seriously his concern that he might accidentally edit elsewhere and get in further trouble for it. If this was out of line or otherwise unhelpful of me, feel free to revert. Best, 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! And don't worry, I did not deem your action unhelpful; as I've written, I didn't want to reblock, but that was just my personal opinion. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gio Gonzalez

No offense, but I feel as though a semi-protection would have been perfectly appropriate. It's not a content dispute at all, but rather waiting for a trade to become official, which will happen once the subject passes a physical. Thus, protecting it fully for 24 hours is overly excessive for something as small as that.--Giants27(T|C) 02:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, in my opinion it would not as you there was a whole bunch of people edit warring and at least two parties to that edit war are autoconfirmed. So, if you can all play nice, then I'll be happy to unprotect the article, but, otherwise, this is the only way to stop the ongoing disruption. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you check the history, it's mainly IP's, before one autoconfirmed user stepped in and started updating the article pre-maturely. I would love to say that I would play nice if that happens again, but if it's updated pre-maturely again, I would revert to protect the integrity of the article as it's not official at the moment. However, despite this, I do believe we have resolved the issue amongst ourselves, so semi-protection would work. Cheers,--Giants27(T|C) 9:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Since I saw you have apparently resolved the issued, I have just downgraded to semi. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

request of Semi-Protection to article 'Rodgen Stewart

Hi i recently applied to get the Semi- protection on article Rodgen Stewart but i choose a template instead and it got declined by yourself. Is there anyway you can sort this out for me please?

Thank you

--Rodgenss (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on WP:RFPP; however, one of Wikipedia's founding pillars is that everyone can edit, including anonymous editors; for that reason, pages are not protected pre-emptively, but only when they're being disrupted by vandals or edit warriors. In this case, the article you created does not qualify for semi-protection, I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

ahhh i understand now.

Thank you for your help

--Rodgenss (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

muhammad al bukhari

muhammad al bukhari was heterodox and it was proven from bukharis own book

unflavoured just wants his own version of bukhari

unlock the page or just revert it to my version

I'm not going to do either, but I invite you to raise this concerns on the article's talk page and discuss it there following WP:DR. Edit wars are not a good way of solving disputes... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hats, IPs and us

That was fast, Salvio. I am grateful to you for looking into this, at least for me. Anything you think I may be able to do for you, only ask. I'll do my best. This I say because I did not know how to attach the ip sock tag you mentioned, and I still don't know how to do it. Also if you'd like this raised at ANI I could try. Trouble is, no one listens to me. I had trouble, as you know, getting one of these IPs in trouble in the first place. I warned them this would happen. Ah well, thanks again. Djathinkimacowboy 22:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused you with another ed. That is why I struck my comment, that was another editor to whom I meant reply. Djathinkimacowboy 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Assistance or opinion Pope Joan

Meanwhile... Salvio, may I ask a comment or opinion on a problem? At the article, I have made many edits. Some of them were careless, I have conceded, but there are editors there exerting a strange sense of ownership. Whenever I try to correct the grammar and streamline this badly worded article, it gets reverted usually in less than 24 hours. Then I am confronted with accusations that I'm "in the wrong place" and that I do not want to work with others. It seems the reverse is the case; will you look? I suggest you peruse the article 1st and then have a casual glance at the end of the talk page entries. I would be grateful. Djathinkimacowboy 06:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Enda Kenny

It looks like we had a protection conflict. Not to worry: I'll say now that I have no objection to the length of time you set, even if it did override mine. :) Best. Acalamari 23:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I did not realise that (I used Twinkle to protect the article)... I'm sorry. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me...I've done it myself plenty of times. :) Thanks! Acalamari 23:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Hi Salvio, I'd like an explanation of your actions with regard to the WT:RFA page. Three admins independently reviewed the content and removed it as disruptive, then the page was protected. You unprotected, saying you would be watching and would block if the edit war resumed. A few hours later, while you were still active on-site, the material was re-added. [1] Are you going to block KW? Are you no longer going to block anyone at all? Because if you are only going to block editors who remove it again, then you are using admin tools to further one side of a dispute, and this is disallowed. The onus is, and always has been, on the editor wishing to add material to justify its inclusion, not on others to justify its removal - or in this case, not able to remove it at all, as you've effectively approved the content. Had you left the page protection in place, a discussion could have taken place. Now, you have closed that avenue off. Can you help me to understand? Franamax (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I considered whether I should block KW, since he had restored the keywords, but was persuaded not to by the fact that he had discussed the issue with another admin; and when I saw that a discussion had been started by Prodego, I preferred to see where it would lead. I agree, though, that the onus is on Kiefer to justify inclusion and, so, I have removed them telling him to get consensus before restoring them. I'm sorry if I appeared biased in any way, during this dispute! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Salvio,

I appreciate your courtesy in alerting me to this discussion. In contrast, Franamax needs remediation in basic WP manners.

Nobody else seems to have discussed the pros and cons of the keywords, apart from 1-2 short edit summaries among c. 6 pissy ones.

Searching for the string "cunt, Malleus" failed to return the page without the keywords. Somebody claimed that the keywords were superfluous and removed them; whether this was luck or a particularly prescient choice of search string, I could not tell, because the administrator made no attempt to document the assertion with the lucky string. I wrote that the other's success may have been because my keywords were included. When I restored the keywords, the search-engine processed "cunt, Malleus" and returned the RfA discussion page at number 6. So the keywords do matter, at least for my minimal search string.

I had talked to the administrator who originally removed the material (if my memory is correct) and then to Blade who re-removed it. I referred to the discussion with Blade in at least one edit summary. You can see my discussion with Guillero about his less-than-informative hidden-archive summary ("containing drama"), at the close of which I admitted that there could be worse hat-summaries....

In short, Franamax's fatuous failure to recognize that I had sought consensus was slothful. His condescension in reminding you about consensus-seeking policies belongs on April Fools' Day.

As I noted to Guillero, his hat-use was seen as premature and perhaps overbearing by at least one serious administrator, I believe in the discussion on the ArbCom case page (or perhaps Malleus's...).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Franamax's tone to you was obnoxious. Well, if Franamax has only one tool, and that tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. Perhaps Franamax should do everybody a favor and use his nail-gun on himself. (KW)

What now?

Since I left a message for another editor about clowning around on my talk page, I thought I'd leave the link[2] so you may also take a stab at explaining what is happening. As you will see, Kuru deleted a comment from my page that was evidently from you. But it seems it was a trolling IP. I do not like this type of thing, and I told you it would worsen. Djathinkimacowboy 08:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It was an IP posing as me. Same old joker who's trying to mess with you. If you wish to report him to ANI, please do, but there's not much any of us can do... Just apply WP:RBI, whoever he is, he's just trying to get a reaction out of you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw evidence of that later. Not worth raising a fuss about people like that. I've my hands filled with editors who don't hide behind an IP and do worse things.... Djathinkimacowboy 22:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you assist with Buster Keaton?

...and I hope it turns out being simple. Salvio, I need discreet help... with this[3]. Now, Pinkadelica (the editor) assures me she did not make the edit in question (switching Keaton's names round erroneously) and I believe this editor. Problem is, they show as if Pinkadelica did make the changes! The page leads to no other conclusion. Note the previous edit and the resulting correction I was forced to make due to the incorrect data. Question: who the heck did this?? Djathinkimacowboy 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know (it might also have been an error in good faith she did not realise she made)... However, Pinkadelica is a trusted and established user: even if she did switch the two names, I'm more than certain she did it in good faith! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Salvio, it appears that there's a lot of vandal-only IPs and editors that have been consistently messing up your talk page. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 12:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! This is just the same guy who kept messing with the Pork pie hat and Fedora; just revert, block and protect... By the way, thanks for reverting his unhelpful edit! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your'e welcome Salvio. by the way, has that user been indef blocked (the one impersonating you)? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 12:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep! I Hardblocked this guy as soon as I saw him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Salvio! I need your help here, it seems that troll just won't seem to leave you alone. Look at this: ([4]) I think a user is using multiple IP addresses and accounts to insult you deliberately. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 13:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Should he be back, I'll also protect your talk page. And I agree that this guy must really dislike me; well, as they say, you can't please everyone. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi-protection Salvio. Should those guys ever come again, i'll let you know. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 14:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is kinu. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. prob bollocks, don't shoot the messenger eh?  Chzz  ►  20:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

Don't worry & thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Happy wossnames. Sorry for being sorry, I shouldn't be paranoid, but... meh; well. Anyway. All is good.  Chzz  ►  21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It would help us plebs if you could maybe mention in the block reason "WP:CORPNAME" and/or article. I know that is PITA/nit-picking, and no big thing. Just sayin'. Have a mince pie. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to use {{softerblock}} and {{spamusernameblock}} because when the blocked user tries to edit, he sees the template which explains why he cannot edit, even if he does not see the orange bar or does not know what its purpose is. I consider this a bit more thoughtful approach... But if it causes confusion, I can certainly use a different block reaon. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree re templates; just maybe you can play with scripts to make the block reason clearer. Is all.  Chzz  ►  22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, Holocaust deniers and the French far right

You're welcome to comment. --Insert coins (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the notification! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

It seems to me that in the recent debate Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Widespread edit-warring users IvanOS and DIREKTOR tried to cheat you with false interpretation. I would ask you to re-look development of debate because some things will become clearer to you (I realy hope that you will understand my English). Happy Holidays and thank you in advance for your time.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I'm not overly familiar with the underlying content dispute, because that topic area is not really my forte; I merely commented on the behavioural issues as I saw them. You were indeed edit warring, reverting other people's edits without engaging in discussion. That's disruptive, even if you're right.

If you believe that Direktor and IvanOS are behaving disruptively, start a subthread on ANI or discuss the issue at the appropriate talk page, just don't edit war. . Now I'm almost off to bed, so I cannot study this case more in depth; however, if, as I fear it might be the case, your complaint does not involve disruptive behaviour but is only limited to a content dispute, then I, as an administrator, can do very little, because we do not adjudicate on content. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I do not think I need to start a subthread on ANI, this one we talking about applies to them also. I am not only one in this who "violated" or even violated rules. I believe they (at least IvanOS) should be also warned because of their activities, or you should delite my warning (because they do technically the same thing, even after this debate). I beg you for another advice to- If I did not undid their changes but just re-write it, is this edit waring?--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Biting

Please do not bite the newcomers as you did with This final warning for a good faith edit by a new user who wanted to create a new page but was not quite sure what they were doing, when they hadn't been told what they had actually done wrong, is harsh and could easily drive away potentially good contributors. --ClubOranje^T 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The user made an edit as an IP, he was reverted; he created an account and made the very same edit; he was reverted and received a level 2 warning; he ignored the warning and repeated the very same edit for the third time. Escalation was only appropriate. Good faith edits can be - and in this case were - disruptive nonetheless. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whippany River Watershed Action Committee

Dear Sal, Happy Holidays! I just got home from my relatives, and saw your e-mail below. When I decided to create an article on the Whippany River Watershed I had no idea what to use as my username so I choose WRWAC, since that was the initial of the committee I wanted to write about. This was obviously a poor choice since it gives the impression that I have a COI. I am familiar with the Whippany River WAtershed as they are active in my community. I wanted to change/and still want to change my username to reflect myself, as I want to create/submit other Wiki articles.I wanted to change midstream but read that if you do the article you are working on goes away. Is this true? Wiki has been a wonderful, albiet time-consuming endeavor. I have learned alot about the Watershed and Wiki. I am amazed how so many volunteers work to make Wiki what it is. What further information do you need/require?

Len (67.85.122.245 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC))

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear WRWAC, The Wikipedia page "User talk:WRWAC" has been changed on 23 December 2011 by Salvio giuliano, with the edit summary: You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your username gives the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website. (TW) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WRWAC&diff=0&oldid=467297734 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WRWAC for the current revision. To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salvio_giuliano Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:WRWAC" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page. Your friendly Wikipedia notification system

Hello Len, first of all, you're encouraged to create a new account; just choose a username that only represents you as an individual and you should not be blocked; alternatively, I can also unblock you and then ask a volunteer called bureaucrat to rename your account. It's your choice.

Regarding articles which disappear as you're writing them, it can happen. In certain, very limited cases, admins are allowed to delete new pages (this can be done, for instance, when the new page is nothing but vandalism or a hoax, is an attack page or is about an entirely unremarkable subject. You are, however, warned and allowed to reply, if you so desire. If you wish to avoid that, you can create a userspace draft, which means that you can create a new article as a subpage of your userspace — this is an exampe: User:Salvio giuliano/sandbox —.

So, if you wish to create an article about Whippany River Watershed Action Committee, the first thing you should do would be to make sure that the Watershed is notable according to Wikipedia's standards — the basic criterion is that for an entity to be considered notable, it must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources —; then you can create the article as a draft in your userspace and, finally, ask for feedback from more experienced editors at WP:FEEDBACK. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk action requested

I would appreciate if either you, or your fellow clerk, would police incivil personal attacks on the workshop page [5]. Many thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider that a personal attack; to say you are "spouting utter nonsense" is not a comment on you, but just one on your opinions. It's a tad uncivil, I grant you that, but it's not the worst I've seen on that page, honestly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad the clerks have the matter in hand. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Youreallycan reported by User:Biker Biker (Result: Page protected)

Hi. I left a note in this discussion which I would like you to take a look at, if you have a moment. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

One particular point here is that you revoked BikerBiker's rollback but have not revoked Youreallycan's Twinkle -- there was no less misuse of Twinkle in that edit war than there was of rollback. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle can no longer be revoked; to prevent a user from using it, an admin has to issue a block, which I did not want to do in this case; besides, WP:RBK states very clearly that misusing rollback in an edit war will lead to the removal of the flag. So, BikerBiker knew that he could lose the tool. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Blocks are so often issued as punishment, it is sometimes difficult to remember that official policy dictates otherwise. And page protection is temporary. I suppose hitting the "Pause" button will give both sides the time they need to develop their positions. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)