Wikipedia

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 95

< User talk:Salvio giuliano
Latest comment: 2 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 31 October 2022
Archive 90←Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97→Archive 100

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

 

  Administrator changes

  Valereee
  Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

  Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

  Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandal

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please block 178.76.132.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 112.215.237.37 (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Rangeblocked for a week, let's see if it's enough. Thanks. Salvio 11:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

copyvio block...

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

So, the account you just blocked is the older account of the current one mass-copyvio spamming: Josy Joykutty, both were just blocked on commons as well for uploading 100+ copyvios. Would you mind also dealing with the newer account? Nearly every creation has been a copyvio. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now, thanks for the heads up. Salvio 15:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem, i'm finding not only is their work largely copyvios, it's pretty....terrible quality. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree entirely, I find it very encyclopaedic to mention that a person hails from a letter-loving family... Salvio 15:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who love people who hail from letter-loving families PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

  Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Kore Mobile

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You may wish to revoke TPA.Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have given the user an only warning, hoping – without much conviction – that TPA revocation is not going to be necessary... Salvio 08:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

User rights

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello sir, I'm TTP1233, the one whom you have unblocked me. Thanks for suck kind decision. It is the patience that brings me here to re-edit in enwiki. I wanted to know that how much time I should not ask for any user rights or reviewer privileges. Because I'm unblocked for now. Thanks Jyoti Roy (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that for at least six months you should focus on editing and improving Wikipedia, to show that you can be a productive editor. After that, you can ask over at WP:PERM. An admin will review your contributions and make a decision. Happy editing. Salvio 07:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Expected answer. Thanks and best.. Jyoti Roy (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Thank you for the recent blocks. Whoever it is knows his/her way around Wikipedia and it's a shame that those efforts are wasted on trolling behavior. Blue Riband► 12:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure. Unfortunately, that's a fairly persistent LTA – Architect 134. If you come across more of his socks, you can report them to his SPI, so that we can also request glocks. Best. Salvio 12:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sala Sporturilor (Mioveni)

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Salvio – I'm using this article in my NPPSCHOOL course, and after I read the cited refs, it is clearly promotion as I stated, but now I'm wondering to what degree admins read the cited sources. Another question, had I tagged it A7, would you have deleted it? Atsme 💬 📧 12:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: I would not, but only because, the way I interpret it, A7 does not apply to arenas/buildings in general. I agree that the article does not belong on Wikipedia, but I think that it should go through PROD or AfD. Regarding G11, I generally only consider the article, which, in this case, was far too short and matter-of-fact to be considered purely promotional – that's how I interpret the [a]ny article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion clause of WP:G11. I can sometimes take into account the intention of the page creator, when, for instance, the username matches the thing being promoted, but that's an exception; as a general rule, I try to only take into account the article as written. Salvio 12:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your well-presented response. It provides a better understanding of what is happening in these situations, and what we need to do at NPP to make it easier on all of us. Atsme 💬 📧 13:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Where is my article

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Where is my article???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idhamari (talk • contribs)

@Idhamari: you moved the page around, but ultimately it was located at User:Arx-deidentifier when I deleted it. The reason I deleted the article was that it was purely promotional. It even provided useful links to each of the services provided by the tool... Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, should be written using a neutral tone and should be based on reliable sources. Furthermore, to qualify for inclusion, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, that are independent of the subject itself. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the policies I have linked above and then you can try again, maybe using this process. Salvio 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I moved the page to my sandbox to review and edit as there is no "un-publish" option available. As you can see this my first time doing this. I still can not find the page or the contents. Could you please help with that?
The page is about open-source tool that is used in research similar to ITK, and VTK. ARX helps researchers since 2013 and I think it should have a wikipedia page similar to other tools. I took text from the official ARX page but I will re-edit the page to have neutral tone. Idhamari (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Idhamari: you could not find the draft, because I deleted it, owing to the issues I highlighted before. However, as a courtesy, I have just restored it and draftified it; you can now find it here: Draft:Arx-deidentifier. Please work on it, to make sure that it complies with our policies, otherwise the page will be deleted again. Once you are done, add {{subst:submit}} to the page, so that it will be reviewed by an experienced user. Salvio 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A question about closure of a deletion discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The customer is always right (disambiguation) 76 minutes after it was opened? The only explanation I can think of is that you intended it as acceptance of the speedy deletion nomination under WP:CSD#G14, but if so (1) you didn't say so: you closed it as though it was the outcome of the discussion, and (2) the page unambiguously did not satisfy that CSD criterion. It was not an example of either Disambiguation pages that ... disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page or disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages, because it disambiguated three articles; nor was it A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)"... I can't see any justification at all for deleting the page without allowing any chance for discussion. If you have such a justification, which I haven't thought of, I shall be interested to learn what it is. JBW (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I speedily deleted per G14, I thought I had closed the AfD as "speedily deleted", but it turns out I didn't. That said, the way I interpret G14, it applies, since that disambiguation page does not disambiguate between any extant articles, other than the one about the slogan. It would be different if the various movies/TV series etc. had articles about them, but they do not. A list of movies or an article about 2019 in British television etc. are not articles about the subject of the disambiguation page and, as such, do not count. Salvio 20:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they absolutely do count. A link from a disambiguation page has to be a link to an article which provides the reader with information on the topic they are searching for, it does not necessarily have to be a link to an article which is substantially about that topic. I am very surprised that someone with your experience isn't aware of that. If you want to see something in writing saying so, you may like to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Items appearing within other articles, but in my opinion seeing it written into a guideline is far less useful than the plain and simple common sense reason that a disambiguation page is intended to help a reader find information on the topic they are looking for, and there is no reason why they should not be helped to find available information just because that information isn't in an article exclusively or predominantly on the topic they are looking for. JBW (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell's DYK ban?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you clarify this close of yours. What exactly does the ban cover? From participating in GA/DYK broadly construed, or just from making nominations? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: the proposal was to merely ban Doug from making nominations and that's what the community supported. So, he is only restricted from making GA and DYK nominations, but can still participate in those processes, if he so wishes, unless the community imposes additional restrictions. Salvio 17:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

LJstats

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Salvio. After you recently temporarily protected Average human height by country, there has been some development both in the edit-warring sphere and on behavioural matters as I have reported here[1] if you wish to intervene or contribute. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just imposed a partial block. I hope that'll be enough... Salvio 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for being forthcoming. Much appreciated. On another note, if in the event a consensus is reached on the talk page, would you consider lifting the protection earlier? The short story is that I've been backed into a corner and I may have to consider concessions on my own part. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The page is not fully protected right now (or, at least, if it is, I screwed up); I simply restored the semi-protection that a fellow sysop imposed back in February, but that means that any autoconfirmed user can edit it. Salvio 21:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm with you. Thanks again Salvio. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
As you're in the loop, you know this has been confirmed now as being an alternative account of a previously banned editor. More so for that reason did I revert him, but so you know, I am still open to discussion and to changes with all other legitimate contributors. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm not sure which noticeboard would be the best to convey this type of information so it might be easier if I were to write directly to you continuing the LJstats thread. This person refuses to stay away, or to appeal his ban from his original account as I believe is a community expectation. We know something about the range based on the geolocation/service provider credentals from this edit where he admitted being who he is. Hereinafter he has returned to shot put and long jump among others (see most recent contributions there). I was originally thinking about requesting that these articles and two others be protected, but at the moment it is better they stay open because each time he returns, we can see where else he edits. BTW my constant reverting of the person is purely because I believe he edits is violation of a ban and is not an indication that the changes are right or wrong. If someone else legitimately comes along and makes the correction that involves reverting me then I will never resist the actions. My only inspection each time is whether there is clear vandalism on the version I am restoring. I recently messaged NinjaRobotPirate here with concerns about User:Abbasi786786. The editor in question wasn't pinged, had been absent five full days, and put in an appearance 33 minutes after the post. Fair enough, NRP didn't see a good reason to suspect Abbasi and I have been careful never to throw about indiscriminately the label "sock" as some editors do to others without the accuser caring to name a sockmaster. I know to do so would be wrong, and so I make no comment here about Abassi himself, but there is no question that the details of the account/s with whom he held a brief discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abbasi786786&diff=1109369875&oldid=1107949881 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A0A:A546:D91F:0:5573:8E6:56CA:A7AC) match the anonymous account that claims to be LJstatst/Prim96. Is a range block for a short time possible here? --Coldtrack (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am a checkuser as well, but, in this case, I have not used my magic 8 ball, because checkusers may not tie an IP address or range to a named editor. I also have not checked Abbasi, because I'm not seeing enough evidence to justify running a check on him. However, LJstats has openly edited using 2A0A:A546:4576:0:71CB:63BC:CC95:66A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2A0A:A546:247C:0:5910:4B64:B7D4:541E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A0A:A546:D91F:0:5573:8E6:56CA:A7AC (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which means that he has been editing from this range 2a0a:a546:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which I have blocked for three days. Salvio 19:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

PS. Please also see [2]. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't block that IP along with the others, because the IP range would be too large, so I have imposed another rangeblock, this time 2A0A:A547:2C6D:0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Salvio 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the action Silvio. Let's hope it slows things down if nothing more. And don't worry, I won't mention Abassi again as I too am losing confidence that he is the same person. I just had to refer to him since low-profile appearances from Prim96/LJstats occurred on his talk. Cheers. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

blocking

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It's interesting that you have blocked me from editing Gun law in North Macedonia instead of blocking the user Kluche who reverted a stable version more than 3 times. Carpaniola (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Because he stopped reverting, that's all. Should he start again, he'd find himself blocked just as much as you. As I said on ANI, you can be edit warring even if you are right. Salvio 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Let me add, I even gave you the chance of avoiding a block. You should have just said that you would stop reverting until a clear consensus was reached on the talk page... Salvio 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
you misunderstood my sentence (perhaps my fault) " The page is currently in its stable version, and in this should remain until the dispute is resolved." anyway the point is not there, the reason I reported the suspicious edits of the two accounts was to stop the edit war. I am fine with blocking for 48 hours, but I wanted to let you know that there was no intention from my side to continue the edit war, anyway sorry for the inconvenience Carpaniola (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

LJstats/Prim96 (22 September 2022)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Salvio. No sooner was the range block lifted than he has returned. See here, and here, His limited number of topics are the big giveaway here. I only revert per BMB. But it seems that regards Average human height by country, he's on a one-man mission and simply isn't going to drop the stick. Whether page protection of range block, the day he gets free access restored, the crusade will resume. As you're in the loop, I'll report straight to you where I feel things need attention here. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification needed about a 3RR report closure

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I see that you are busy at the moment, but when you find the time I need a clarification. Alexikoua is saying that you closed that report with a warning to both him and me. Did you warn me about edit warring? The only editor found there to be edit warring was Alexikoua, not me. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I only warned him, but the template automatically closes the report as "warned user(s)". As I said during the discussion, Alex was edit warring and Alex was warned. Salvio 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank your for the clarification. Alexikoua actually continues efforts to add content without consensus even after the warning [3]. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
You did not block Alexikoua for breaching the 3RR thrice with the understanding that he will not revert if others disagree with new content he adds and seek consensus on the talk page. The fact that you did not sanction him not only has not made Alexikoua reflect, but apparently has made him care less about the edit warring rules. On the talk page of Lefter Talo I and another editor have not agreed with the addition Alexikoua wants to make, but he keeps adding it. On Pecë several editors there and on other similar articles have told Alexikoua about issues with a particular source, but he keeps reverting. As the admin who warned Alexikoua and gave him a chance to escape sanctions, can you make sth as this is becoming boring? Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • After your warning, Alexikoua is reverting numerous editors on several articles. After you warned him, he stopped edit warring on Pyrros Dimas, but yesterday he resumed edit warring. As you can see, within 24 hours between October 2 and October 3 he has made 3 reverts on that article. Since September 6, Alexikoua has made around 14 reverts on that article. Can you do something as the situation is getting out of control? Durraz0 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_95&oldid=1120474761"