User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 52

Per your headline,

I shall not interpret your error, even this really stupid one, as a personal attack. You should add a pledge to learn from your errors, particularly your really stupid ones.

Why don't you take 2 weeks off Wikipedia to reflect on your abuse of power?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no abuse of power on my part – and the community pretty much agreed with my actions – so, no, I don't think I need to take a fortnight off. Happy editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit-revert-revert

To set the record straight on that matter. Four administrators, including you, Salvio, have now voiced their opinion that an edit which is not restoring previously present content or undoing the action of another editor in a concrete manner is not counted as a first revert. Kuru said on the report page, if the edit was introducing new content, there was no problem with regards to 1RR if there is one subsequent revert. Even my special friend said: "... basically everyone agrees that a first addition is not a revert unless it undoes someone else's contribution in a concrete manner." EdJohnston on the topic you started cited WP:EW: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." Only in the case of a major restructuring, Ed says, it can be considered a first revert. But in this case, neither me nor Akrabbe nor Ma4rd are under general 1RR. The previously existing material changed by me on the Balochistan article through the restructuring was not by TG. So it doesn't count as a revert of TG. The 1RR is only in place in relation to TG, and he was reverted only once. JCAla (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Maria Menounos

This article is screaming once again to be protected, not soon after the last one expired the same IP pop up re adding the Greek- American with out discussing it on the talk page for which there are several entries (one from me and one going back a few years from someone else,proving this is a long,long time issue) about the same issue, adding and removing of the same content is starting to get ridiculous again.--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just semied the page for three months. This guy is certainly persistent... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible class project

I asked at Wikipedia:An#Possible_class_project.3F and got no responses, but both Distance education and Virtual education are again under a sustained period of editing from what amount to SPAs. I am convinced that they are connected to Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, which has a long history of spamming and pov-pushing on Wikipedia. However, on the odd occasion that I have tried, I cannot get a response out of the contributors - they come and go too fast. What to do? - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As a precautionary measure, I have semied the two pages for two days pending discussion. Hopefully, someone will chime in on AN... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the semi has already had an effect on my talk page. Perhaps now I can get to the bottom of it all. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good! That's what I hoped would happen! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, they have moved on to E-learning ! And that includes our co-operative friend of yesterday. I'll check out some other articles of the same ilk. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

my Distance learning edit

You protected the Distance learning edit from me it seems. This was my first edit so I'm sorry it did not meet standards; however, I read your reasons and I did not feel that the reversion is justified. I cited everything, which was paraphrased, and I added a different type of criticism from PBS NewsHour, which you deemed unhelpful. Pcm130 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pcm130 and, first of all, let me welcome you to Wikipedia. I semi-protected the page for two days to encourage you (plural) to discuss with us and explain your edits. This action was not meant to reflect in any way on you or your edits! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I left a short explanation that I added further information from a recent report from PBS NewsHour. Is that not sufficient? Sorry to not meet the standard. The recent activity is because I am part of a cohort for an M.S. in Ed online program that has the task to edit a wiki article. I tried my best to meet the standards of impartiality and citations. By the way is there a shortcut key for the tildes? Thanks Pcm130 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It probably was sufficient. As I was saying, I protected the article not because you in particular were being disruptive, but because you (plural) were not talking and we could not understand what was going on... You see, your professor should have contacted Wikipedia in advance – we have rules regarding class projects –. Nothing serious, he can still do so now and the fact that you're engaging in discussion is clarifying a lot of things. That said, has your professor created an account? Is there a way to contact him? Regarding the four tildes, you can click on one of these icons: or . They should appear in your edit toolbar (the thingy which appears above the edit screen). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent 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.

Tagging

You last rebutted massive tagging in statements from a revision of editor with IBAN, [1] this is another one of those incidents, I'm reluctant to report this, but I want to know either it is OK or is it a vio in black and white (it was one in the spirit last I checked with you) as I've been refraining from doing such myself and don't want to file petty reports either, since they're only going to get me into trouble as well. I reverted this version in. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment That content was not written by the person with who I have the IBAN. If having reverted in content blanking means I can no longer edit it then I could blank an entire article, restore it and then the other person would never be able to edit that article again. There should be no gaming the system here. The content in question was also edit warred in by a sock of Nangparbat. I would also point out an IP asked on my talk page if I would take a look at that content. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to agree with DS here: if you had added the content he was tagging, then it would be a violation; since you just reverted it in – especially considering the weird edit war –, then I'm not so sure. I don't recall precisely what happened the last time we discussed one of you tagging the other's contributions; was a similar case? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism... but yes intended to endorse that version further too as the editwarring IP was later calling it OR. Well removing the content now would be a violation of the letter, but this was about the tags. So should I treat it as precedent for future for tagging just vandalism reverts? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For the non vandalism reverts (the last case), you warned DS if I remember correctly as it was a violation of the spirit of IBAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the last time this was reported as a violation at least two editors at ANI said adding tags was not a violation. And I will remove that content regardless as the IP was correct. All the sources are opinion pieces or fail verification. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding tags can be a violation, in my opinion, as it can be construed as a way to comment on the other editor's edits, which you're banned from doing. In this case, I'm not sure it was a violation, because a. your edit summary made it clear you reverted what you thought was vandalism and b. the edit war might have muddied the waters a bit. And, sadly, I'm finding that it is very difficult to interpret what is and isn't allowed: too many shades of grey... That said, Darkness Shines, I'd advise against removing those sources now that TopGun has made it clear that he was also endorsing that version. Let another non-restricted editor remove them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why was the other not blocked when he added a NPOV tag at the top of an article I had just created? 12:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. About the NPOV tag, it was on the entirety of the article which you allowed and has been done by both editors quite a few times by now. Anyway I'll not consider it a vio and back off... just wanted to know if I could do such tagging if I disagreed with the sources and the case was similar since these cases repeated often. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The obvious reply is that I didn't block him because I wasn't aware of his tagging an article you had just created... Or, alternatively, for the sake of my headache, we can agree that tagging the other user's edits is never a violation and I'm just as happy (but this could be problematic because you would not be able to remove the tags)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you have a bad head. WP:3O could be used then, for tags. This seems like an excellent way forward. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the status quo is good, ie. tagging the whole article and commenting on content is not a problem and has been done by both sides. The statement tags however are irritating and shouldn't be added, but I can see the reason for your judgement on this case. DR has always been used to continue to work on the content without violating IBAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

Darkness Shines (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hounding and tagging

The purpose of IBAN was to prevent any more hounding in part (given my original list of diffs at that thread) and now that we've clarified the above about tags... this non-controversial pretext edit was made soon after my edits to the article which I've previous edited since quite long and DS has never edited before. Next he reverted a user claiming it a sock in edit summary [2] in favour of another sock of a user who has been trying to remove this content since a few months (by IP hopping) and has had range blocks for vandalism, hounding and canvassing. Assuming good faith and taking this as a procedural revert and not reporting as a violation, I reverted the IP's version back ignoring the intermediate edits as I had reverted that blanking many times before and endorsed on talk page [3]. Now he has added a series of tags to the content that I have re-added as vandalism reverts and non vandalism reverts, probably added citations too and endorsed. This is clear cut hounding and messing around, he was warned of this before. The last time I reverted content added by another user (which was once removed by DS), you called it an IBAN vio (this was done right here too reverting one claimed sock to another previously blocked sock). Now DS is bent on flirting with the boundaries of the IBAN, he also blanked talk page of the banned user, Nangparbat, even after he revealed that he would like to use that for appeals, and this page was full of my comments from before I realized that he was a banned user [4]. Such blanking was also a vio and I did not report it to stay out of trouble. Please take action to stop this hounding and interaction. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I had already explained above how I got to that article when MAR4d followed my contributions to make a complaint about me. I will clarify I created the article Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan I wanted to begin the section on ISI involvement during the Soviet conflict, so [5] I look on the obvious article fix a redlink and am on my way to do this[6]. There was no hounding at all. The IP who removed the content is not a sock, as the previous IP who removed it is not currently blocked. I do not know who wrote the content I added a CN tag to but I will check, if it was written by the one with who I have the IBAN I will self revert. I do not know who wrote the content to which I added a RS tag, I will do the same. There has been no hounding there so far as I know has been no IBAN violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Right, to the first. The uncited content I tagged was added by an IP [7] 5 December 2011, my adding a CN tag is not an IBAN violation. Shall check the other now. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• And to the second, the content I tagged as RS was added by an IP[8] So again, no IBAN violation. Another utterly pointless complaint which has been an entire waste of my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• I redirect the socks talk page [9] which is standard policy for sock talk pages. The sock reverted so I reverted him[10] Notr my edit summary. The sock again reverted me[11] saying he did not have his sockmaster account details anymore, so I left it be. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quite honestly, I must admit I need a break; I don't have the spiritual strength to deal with your dispute right now. So I have to ask you to please find another trusted admin who can help you solve your conflicts for a couple of weeks... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues with that. I'll ask another administrator to review this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Boing said Zebedee would suit me, in fact any admin but Magog who blocks me on the slightest pretext without ever looking into things. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much, it's very much appreciated! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have asked RegentsPark whom I respect & Boing! said Zebedee who so far as I know is entirely uninvolved to comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

While the tags are flirting close to the spirit of ban, I don't think they violate the letter of the ban because you (TopGun) didn't actually add the content (merely reverted the removal). Removing comments from the talk page of a sock is definitely not a violation. Nangaparbat is welcome to seek various means of communication if he/she wishes to edit again but using a sock talk page is not of those means. I suggest that DS, please don't tag any material that is in the article because of an action done by TopGun whether or not the material was originally added by him. One can assume good faith in one or two such actions but a collection of actions of this nature will be problematic for you. Boing!, you're welcome to differ with this analysis and take any action you like.--regentspark (comment) 14:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is important to note that I made this report after clarifying repeated tagging of such kind on different articles... while my mere vandalism reverts tagged were not considered a vio above, but it was previously clarified not to tag content added by me (in this case explicitly endorsed and protected against socking for quite some time). And then the revert from one sock's version to another. It should be kept in mind that when I'm endorsing and discussing content, if tagged, I will not be able to remove the tags even while I was already working on the content, so it will disrupt my editing. Magog and Salvio both gave DS previous warnings for flirting with IBAN boundaries. Why has he taken it on him self to get into an edit war between two socks explicitly when I'm involved... --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, I'm flattered to have been asked, and yes I'm uninvolved. But I've seen these disputes going on for months between these two, and I'm afraid I just can't face the sapping of my spirit that getting involved would inevitably lead to - especially when it's a nice Spring afternoon and there are much better things to be doing than fighting on Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Guys, even though I am not involved, I have noted that TopGun and Darkness Shrine have been getting into far too many scraps lately and it is simply testing the waters of the community. (I will at this stage admit that I have not fully investigated the matter in depth). And I agree with Boing here; you two should be doing better things than getting into too many scraps here. Lastly, TopGun, you are missing the point here. Arguing about what's happened in a combative manner will not help the administrators here. As I would like to point out, you cannot keep on getting into too many scraps regardless of whether you are right or not. I am simply leaving one thought here. Have a nice day, the both of you. Soviet King :  ?  08:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The sole purpose of my report was so that I'm left alone to edit constructively. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, understood. I've done my thoughts here. Have a nice day. Soviet King :  ?  10:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

When you unblocked me[12] here how long was left to run on the block? I want you to reset it so I am no longer bound by 1RR. I am sick of people gaming the restriction. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:SteveGinIL

Hi Salvio. SteveGinIL is appealing his block to ArbCom. I note that you blocked both his talkpage and his ability to email. Do you have some extra information or insight that might be useful for us to consider? A reply to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org would be useful, but I will watch here if you prefer to comment here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news

There's progress on the content side of the dispute, the Mediation Commmittee accepted the case that I put before them. However, as I see from the posts above that the conduct issue is not even close to having progress. Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

• Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

• News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

• Discussion report: The future of pending changes

• WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

• Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notification

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. Thank you. Silverseren^C 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Log issue

Salvio, could you remove the content and edit summary for this diff in my CSD log; I would rather not have it there. Thanks. Calabe1992 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's gone. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Calabe1992 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Fwd:Wikipedia e-mail.
Message added 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC). 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.

This is important. Thanks, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:More footnotes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:More footnotes. 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) 03:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work. I would like some help on an article I'm writing about Chinese activist Wang Juntao. Can you possibly assist or recommend me someone who could. Yours, John Kingjohnkk (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar, Kingjohnkk! I really appreciate it! Unfortunately, I have very little time for Wikipedia, these days, so I fear I would not be available to help you in a timely manner... You can ask User:Anna Frodesiak or User:Sitush, who are both quite experienced and friendly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We are? Actually,  ... yes, we probably are. Don't be distracted by any scuffles that you may see on our talk pages. I am not particularly familiar with the Chinese sphere but if you need some help or advice, Kingjohnkk, then feel free to ask and I'll do my best to assist. Provided that it does not entail reading sources published in anything other than the English language. That and gibberish are the limits of my linguisic competence, 30+ years after studying a few Latin-based languages at school. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to have User:Nightscream topic-banned from Touré and Talk:Touré

Hey Salvio, you removed my request to have User:Nightscream topic-banned from Touré and Talk:Touré [13]. I think my concerns, as expressed here, are valid. Please let me know what made you delete my request. Draco^E 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, because it was basically rather inappropriate; aside from the tone of your message, it's bad form to spam a request to sanction a user. And by the way, ANI is the most watched noticeboard on Wikipedia, so there is no need to post links to a discussion occurring there on other pages. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know how pointing out some extremely unreasonable behavior by an admin was inappropriate. The reason I posted this on BLP/N was because I wasn't quite sure where this belonged, given that the user was behaving badly in the context of an Rfc on a BLP. Please don't accuse me of spamming. A little AGF will go a long way. :) Draco^E 00:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hes Back

You banned chronicalusual's latest creation brigade93 two days ago, now yesterday this guy User:Reinhart567 was created and he is already an expert on how the Syrian uprising page is western propaganda. I think you know what to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reinhart567

Sopher99 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also User:AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs226.Jacob102699 (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually that user was created by anon ip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.232.48.173, after I reverted several times an attempt he made to change the Syrian page. Sopher99 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That wp:legal block you just did

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

See what ensued at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_of_legal_action_by_Chrisjs60. I'm not going to ask you to unblock anyone, but please remember to look into the editor's reason for making the threat. In this case there was actual unsourced defamatory content on the page in question. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)