User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 43

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Page for the poet Simon R Gladdish

Hello Salvio! How are you? Thank you for your instructions on the codes for the references. The problem seems to be resolved and the reference is lit up in blue with the appropriate symbols. If everything is now correct who actually deletes the error tag? If it's me how do I do it or do I have to wait for you to moderate and inspect the text? Also, I wondered why some of my links are in red. Anyway, thanks again and have a great weekend.

Regards from Riccardito (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Riccardito, I have slightly modified the layout of your article so that it complies with Wikipedia's rules and I have removed the proposed deletion template. Furthermore, I have tagged the page for improvement, so that more experienced Wikipedian can help to make it better.

Please note, however, that the article still needs more reliable sources to prove Simon's notability – to qualify for inclusion, a person must be notable, namely he must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (this is the basic criterion to determine the notability of a subject, though there are many others) –. So, please, do provide more sources.

Finally, when a wikilink is red it means that the page it links to does not exist, whereas when it is blue, the page does exist. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

the page for the poet Simon R Gladdish

Hello Salvio

Many thanks for your good work. It's good to see the page looking so professional and I appreciate your careful editing. I have taken on board your comments about inserting more third party references and links and I am working on it. Have a great weekend!

Regards from Riccardito (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's very good, Riccardito! And a great weekend to you too!

P.S. This tutorial explains how to do some useful tricks with wikilinks. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mewulwe

Will I also get blocked if I remove his WP:OR and restore the citations he removed? I have no desire for a block, but the sources used are highly reputable. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I believe that it would not be fair to Mewulwe if I blocked him but not you, if you too were to pick up where you left off. I understand you believe you're right and he's being disruptive, but I'm sure he thinks the very same thing...

Since there are many editors involved in this content dispute, my advice to you would be to just wait a little bit: if his edits are really disruptive, someone else will certainly undo them soon. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will give it a few days. I have posted on the talk pages of the articles in question and hopefully there will be some feedback. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good! That's the best thing you could do. Aside from avoiding blocks, , this course of action insures that the results you obtain, though maybe not immediate, are more lasting. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Dowkiller

Take note that this user is engaging in personal attack on his talk page, as seen here. Consider taking away this user's talk page privilege if such personal attack recurs. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind message. Yep, should Dowkiller post something like that again, he'll lose his ability to edit his talk page. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for page block on Dissociative Identity Disorder article

I find this action you have taken to be highly appropriate, and I'm grateful for it. (For the record, I didn't even know this sort of thing was possible - I'm not a legalist in the Wikipedia world. I also did not initiate any request for administrative involvement for which this was the result.)

Since becoming involved with this article, I and others have been relentlessly hounded by a couple of very possessive and rather irrational editors. I am seeking a solution to this problem. I have a professional interest in this article (I treat DID), which has been evidencing a seriously distorted POV for some time. This is, I believe, unfair and potentially injurious to people with DID who come to the article for information about their condition. In addition, the hostile environment there is potentially injurious to editors with DID who try to work on the article - we do have several. I am outraged by how the have been treated.

I hope to make good use of this brief quiet time at the article. I have NO expectation whatsoever that it will change any of the problems I have outlined, however. We need a systems change.

In the present environment, it is hard for me to justify my involvement, as the time costs to me are prodigious. This is very sad, and seriously diminishes the chances that this article will ever be worthy of serious attention. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation really understands how hard it is for content experts to become involved with Wikipedia.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Yep, Admins can semi-protect and fully protect pages – meaning that only autoconfirmed users or sysop, respectively, can edit them –; this is usually done when an article is being disrupted by vandals or by editors who are edit warring in good faith. For future reference, hoping you won't need this, should you wish to ask that an article be protected, just post a request at WP:RFPP.

Unfortunately, I'm completely unfamiliar with DID (my field of expertise is law), so I cannot really tell who's right. My advice, if the ongoing dispute cannot be easily solved on the article's talk page, is to resort to WP:DR. There is, for instance, a noticeboard where a lot of helpful and experienced users help others solve their conflicts.

Finally, if you have been harassed, hounded or attacked, you can report the other user to an administrator or to WP:ANI, another noticeboard, providing diffs –they have to be recent, of course; and, in general, it's a good thing to pay attention to WP:BOOMERANG–, so that the other person can be warned or even blocked... Regards. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice. Am much in need of it. The two edit warring editors are very pathological in their behavior, and consequently much damage is being done. They will win simply because they have more time, and I do not have familiarity with how to handle this kind of destructiveness in the Wikipedia community. I really need assistance. Will follow up on your recommendations, absolutely. Again, thanks for you suggestions.

As a technical aside, may I ask what led you to place the block? Did someone contact you, or was there some kind of screening tool that alerted you automatically to the problem? (I'm guessing that it was the latter.) I'm trying to learn more about how things work, even though I'm hardly new here.Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the admins who keep an eye on WP:RFPP, the noticeboard were users report pages that, in their opinion, should be protected. I happened to be active when this article was listed and so I protected it. For future reference, when fellow users are behaving disruptively, you can report them to an appropriate noticeboard. If they're edit warring, there is WP:ANEW; if, on the contrary,they're abusing another editor, then there is WP:WQA or WP:ANI – depending on the seriousness of the abuse they're dishing out –. For long-term problems, the best recourse is a request for comment – and Arbcom the extrema ratio –. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to Arbcom. Here's an excerpt from an email I just got, from an individual who was briefly trying to become involved with the article. This individual has DID. (Bear in mind that DID is invariably caused by extreme childhood trauma, and is the most grave of the anxiety disorders.)

i have been really quiet on wikipedia. the guys over there make me afraid to do or say anything. and now the sockpuppet investigation thing with tylas

i think i have lost all faith in wikipedia and worry my friends and family will read it and take it seriously

i want to help but i don't know what to do wikipedia is so confusing and so intimidating

i hope that the page can be fixed and improved

if i can help if there is some way for me to help that is easy and not overwhelming and confusing please let me know

That things should have come to this is an outrage. (And believe me, this is but the tip of the iceberg.)

In my work as Regional Ambassador for the Wikipedia Global Education Program, we try to get university professors and students involved with Wikipedia. As you know, we have a real problem retaining female editors. When this sort of thing can go on for DAYS (and it has been) we're in real trouble. I am convinced that if we are unable to make the editing community safe for women and people with disabilities, including mental health disabilities like DID, Wikipedia will eventually die. I am committed to working for another outcome.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the case will be accepted, because ArbCom generally rejects cases when previous dispute resolution processes have not been tried, but if you need any help – correctly formatting a request can be complicated – I'll try to provide it. Note, however, that ArbCom only deals with behavioural issues and not with content – so you cannot start an arbitratio request because you think the other users are wrong, though to push a fringe POV is considered a behavioural issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that I'm moving too fast to go to Arb.Comm. Casliber has suggested a more appropriate forum for my requests for aid, and I'm following that suggestion. My thanks to you both for helping me here, as this whole conflict resolution process is not at all familiar ground for me. I'm learning, though! Tom Cloyd (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop crashing me!

Typhoonwikihelper (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not crashing you; and I have no intention whatsoever of crashing you. You keep posting messages on another user's talk page, after this person has asked you to please stop. Please, take heed to his request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Took your advice, need some more

I took your very good advice at the edit-war notification page about User:IIIraute, where I had said, "I am wholeheartedly all for dispute resolution, and I will investigate options and ask him in good faith. He has, however, been uncivil, nasty and sarcastic, so I'm hesitant to engage with him to ask, and open myself up to further abuse." And that is exactly what happened.

I'd like to ask two things, if it's alright and I'm not overstepping the bounds of your patience so far. First, is there no recourse when an editor verbally abuses and personally insults you, in a continuing pattern? You should see his abusive, highly personal invective (below). I've found the Wiki Etiquette noticeboard of no help unless people are using curse words at you, which has given some editors free reign to hurl insults. Second, he appears to be refusing dispute resolution — it's hard to tell from his vague answer — so where do we go from here? I'm genunely interested in reaching a solution, but just look at the kind of person this is:

Extended content

CC of post at IIIraute talk page Would you be open to following the admin's advice on our 3RR page and pursuing with me dispute resolution at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC) As you are not really interested in improving the article, do whatever you think you have to do - although to prevent further damage, maybe it would be better if both our accounts got blocked, as IMHO your edits are ignorant, manipulative, contraproductive and only serve the support of your dogmatic, self-opinionated POV.--IIIraute (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps your rudeness wasn't malicious, and that you simply didn't have much experience speaking collaboratively with people. I see by the venom you spew above that this probably isn't so, and that you're simply an angry, abusive person. I find it very ironic that the traits you hurl so blithely, as if you're not dealing with another human being, are exactly what one would ascribe to you if one were at your level. I'm sorry for whatever it is in your life that makes you angry that you feel the need to behave here in a way that one would hope you never do in real life. I'll pass along your answer to the admin who'd asked us to seek DP, and see what he suggests we do at this point. ----Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia has serious problems enforcing WP:CIV – as an ongoing ArbCom case sadly goes to show –. Aside from requests for comments when there is a pattern of repeated, serious incivility, there's nothing the community can do. WQA does a little, but it's woefully insufficient... I have left a comment on IIIraute's talk page, but I'm not really optimistic about it...

I see that an RFC has already been started and is ongoing, however. My advice is to just let it play out; it should, hopefully, yield a result in a couple of weeks. In the meantine, you report all violations of policy to the appropriate venue (edit warring to WP:ANEW and personal attacks to WP:WQA or WP:ANI depending on the gravity). I'm sorry I can do very little at the moment... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I do appreciate what you've done so far. Being an admin is an incredibly onerous, time-consuming job, having to deal with so many schoolyard squabbles as this. I can only say that without you folks voluntarily taking on this burden, Wikipedia would have long gone all Lord of the Flies and no one would take it seriously at all. You and the other admins and bureaucrats are the only things keeping this altruistic free worldwide encyclopedia from becoming so hostile that no one wants to come here. You have my gratitude. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're much too kind. I only wish I could do more... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are so kind Salvio. I am so sorry you have to deal with this unmannered savage that belongs to the German ancient aristocracy, holds a BA(Hons.) from the University of London (UCL), a MLitt from the University of Glasgow, a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, as well as the chair of an Honorable Council Member at the University of Glasgow. I deeply regret that I do not have the skills to flatter you the way our dear friend Tenebrae does. You see, I am a busy but uncultured man. I wish I also had more time to play the altruistic admin here, but unfortunately I have a real job. I guess the times of the robber baronry are over. Yours, sincerely, The Right Honorable Count--IIIraute (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Should you ever travel to my barbarical homeland you are very welcome to stay in my castle.--IIIraute (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I did just see that you studied law - from a jurist I would have expected a bit more in dubio pro reo and a bit less biased lobbying effort. You should try to use your Third Eye, instead of letting yourself being influenced by pseudo-academic mumbo-jumbo. No hard feelings! ...you can still visit me.--IIIraute (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, I'm sorry you had to put up with such a sarcastic attack simply for trying to help resolve an article-page dispute. And I'm sorry that you have to deal with a person who can't conceive that someone who's been on Wikipedia for nearly seven years might have genuine gratitude for the extra work that admins voluntarily take on. I'm not sure how seriously I would take his claims; anyone who really had that kind of English education wouldn't have used the non-word "barbarical"!  :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah, right.... well, you think whatever you want... but let me tell you that you could also find my name in the wikipedia.. Ta ta for now!--IIIraute (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Page for the poet Simon R Gladdish

Buon Giorno Salvio

I Hope you are well. Thanks again for posting my piece it looks very good indeed and I am really pleased. I am expanding the profile on a regular basis now. However, just a little niggle that I want to ask about. There are now three tags on my biography and I wondered when they will be removed.

Kindest regards

Riccardito (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Madurai Airport

Madurai Airport, India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Airport does not have any Single international flight operation then how comes it got the status of CUSTOMS AIRPORT? official Airport Authority of India Link with the Customs Airport list http://www.aai.aero/allAirports/custom_airports.jspi hope you will modify it as Domestic airport instead of Customs airport Naanmahan (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know nothing about the topic at hand, so I cannot help you... I will note, however, that the article is only semi-protected, so you can make the change yourself, if you wish. Just be aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil

Is there anything you can do to stop the baiting on his talk, before Ceoil ends up with an even longer block because of the baiting?

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

When Ceoil's typing includes that many typos, he's beyond Irish angry, and Carcharoth needs to stop (so does everyone else, but I thought everyone else already had, or in the case of Ceoil, had been blocked). I don't know what tools are at your disposition for a case like this, but can you at least warn anyone else who is continuing (eg Carcharoth) to stay off of his page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seconded your request to refrain from posting on his talk page. The tools I have at my disposal in cases such as this are the ability to protect Ceoil's talk page and to block those who engage in grave dancing despite warnings... I'd rather see if we can solve this without using the tools again... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and I hope you'll watch all involved to try to prevent it from just continuing elsewhere (that is, Lecen, TCO, Wehwalt, Diannaa, Alarbus, Ceoil, Carcharoth, me of course ;) -- I've archived my talk in the hopes that the peanut gallery will also stop. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try, but it's really difficult to follow this entire dispute, it's too widespread. I caught those insults only because they were posted on ANI... If I were to miss something – which is almost sure, sadly – feel free to ping me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not I, said the Little Red Chicken :) I see Casliber entered the picture: perhaps he will be able to get some sensibility to prevail, since 1) he was paying attention, and 2) he was privy to the previous issues I referenced. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate use of talk page while blocked

• seems pretty clear-cut

Alarbus (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's terribly inappropriate. You blocked this user, he's abusing his talk page. And he did it on his own, there was no "baiting". Salvio, right now there is a feeling that some can loose off and say anything they want.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And this though he redacted it, as you see. But that's still quite something to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me apologise for my tardy reply. Real life got in the way, I'm sorry.

I see Ceoil has blanked his talk page, removing all attacks. Considering this, I don't think revoking his talk page access would be useful at the moment, except to further escalate the entire matter... Again, I apologise for my delay. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Santorum

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Santorum. 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) 19:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edinburgh_Wanderer

Hey there, the situation has since escalated since your previous comment at this case, I ask that you take a look & investigate the history surrounding the case & reasons why Porridge Gobbler was initially banned. I'm only sending you this message out of urgency as we may loose one of the most valuable Wikipedians, not to mention the fact we will be overloaded with frivolous AfD's. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at the moment I'm kinda busy, so I cannot investigate this case with the appropriate care and don't want to block without making a thorough due diligence... I'm sorry... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway, I respect the reasons behind your decision. Hopefully intervention will be taken soon. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hartsfield Airport edit war

After completing the edit-war report, I realized that the page protection has solved the issue and gotten the two parties talking. Sorry for creating some busy work for you to take care of on the page, but thanks for looking at it just the same. --McDoobAU93 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No biggie, don't worry. It's what admins get paid for, after all. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep saying to myself it's time to submit myself for RfA ... then I see the workload and the paycheck. Still wanna do it sometime, though. --McDoobAU93 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a sysop is not what it's made out to be, honestly: most admin duties are dull and repetitive; but you get to block the people you dislike .

Seriously, the real problem is RfA: it can be an incredibly unpleasant experience... If you're really interested in becoming an admin, this is one of the best essays around about it. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock of User:EPublicRelationsMT

I noticed that you unblocked User:EPublicRelationsMT, [5] so they could change their name, but I'm confused as to the venue that it was discussed at after they were denied an unblock (spamming, multiple people using the account, etc). You indicated at unblock-en-l, but could you please provide a link to that discussion? Please pardon my ignorance, that isn't a forum I've run across before. Thanks! Dennis Brown (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's one of Wikipedia's mailing lists and it deals with appeals from people who were either blocked directly or prevented from editing due to blocks meant for someone else (users caught in autoblocks, for instance); in the case you refer to, we had a long discussion and I believe the user now understands our policies and will try to abide by them. That's why I unblocked – after all, blocks are preventative. Should the editor disrupt Wikipedia any further, blocks will be swift. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a link to the discussion, because I am not at liberty to divulge emails other people send me, I'm really sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Not a problem. Your explanation clears it up more than adequately. Hadn't seen an unblock via that method is all. Obviously it wasn't a snap decision so I certainly won't question your judgement. When there is a problem with a user that I have been involved in, I tend to keep an eye out from a distance is all. Thanks for taking the time to explain it properly. I learned something, which is always good. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To keep an eye on users who have proven to be problematic is a very good thing! I have the talk pages of many disruptive users on my watchlist to be ready to intervene should it be needed... Should you see anything strange going on with EPublicRelationsMT feel free to ping me and I'll see what I can do. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision

Cross posting to all five of the names at the top of the page (except Risker, who's talk page is locked)

Sorry to bother you, but in case you haven't seen it there's a lot of complaints here that it's now well past the Proposed Decision date and nobody has made any kind of announcement, even to say "there will be a delay, the new expected date is...". This isn't fair on anyone involved, as nobody can start work on anything until they know what the likely decision will be since nobody knows who's likely to end up blocked or under some kind of sanction. I appreciate that you don't want to rush the decision, but is there any chance someone involved in the case can post an update as to when a decision is likely to be made? At the moment, the closest thing there is to any kind of response from the Arbitration Committee is a sarcastic comment ("since when is a target a promise?").78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with you all, and with Malleus in particular. Unfortunately, as a clerk, there's nothing I can do. I have no control over the case deadlines. And, being no Arbitrator, I'm obviously not subscribed to ArbCom's mailing list so I don't know when the proposed decision will be posted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback question

Hi, thanks for accepting my rollback request a few days ago; I've got a question about when it can be used. It says everywhere that it can only be used to revert clear vandalism, not simply good faith edits. But if I were to come upon a good faith edit that was not vandalism, but was incorrect and simply needed to be removed immediately, how would this edit be removed, if not with rollback? Perhaps my definition of good faith is wrong, but this seemed a bit confusing to me. Thanks! Delaywaves • talk 03:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, such an edit can be removed using the undo button or using Twinkle's "rollback (AGF)" option; rollback is, usually, only meant for clear-cut cases of vandalism, because it doesn't allow you to enter an edit summary – there is also another case: where you have to revert many similar wrong edits made by the same user, due to a misuse of WP:AWB for instance. I can't think of any case where a good-faith edit needs to be removed so fast that the undo button won't do, but, in those cases, you can always invoke WP:IAR and, then, leave a note on the other editor's talk page, explaining him what you just did. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an honour for me

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For support and patience during an editor's rough time. You are one of the ROCKS of this place. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And welcome back!

I've just added the barnstar to my collection! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The welcome is deeply appreciated. I could not thank you enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 00:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Serama protection

You recently declined semi-protection for Serama as there was not enough recent activity to justify it. However, before the previous semi, there was the same changes being made with unsourced information about living people being inserted. This has continued, and I thought I'd ask for a reevaluation of semi before reverting again. Thanks, CMD (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree; hence, I've semied the article for a week. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP came back again, to make the same edits. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the IP appears to be trying to reference. They once tried to reference to a forum, which I told them was inappropriate. I don't think they'll take any information from me well, so I'd appreciate it if you tried to explain WP:V and WP:RS to them. Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with leaving a warning on an IP's talk page one or two days after the events which prompted the need to issue said warning is that the original editor has probably moved to another IP and will not see the note... Just remove it, leaving a note on the article's talk page – by the way, that material is also problematic due to its tone. Should the IP come back, point him there and see if he starts discussing... If he doesn't, then I'll protect again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP has been steady since November, and first edited the page in June, so for whatever reason it doesn't appear to be one that jumps around. Talkpage done, and talkbacked to section. CMD (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

They've added a note asking readers to google the references. The first two references don't immediately appear reliable to me, although the third is a book. I've pointed the IP to the talkpage, so I'm not sure what else I can do. CMD (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP definitely has some sort of COI, as they're insisting on removing inaccurate information and continue to place more unsourced info, the tone of which is promotional of the 'true Malaysian Serama'. Is it possible to have it locked again with another explanation to the IP that they'll have to provide links to sources or quotes? I don't think they're in the mood to listen to me. CMD (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have semied the article for a month, leaving a short note on the talk page. I hope this will be enough to get the IP to start discussing and providing sources... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)