User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 23

The Kinky Kwartet

I have finally been able to find a legitimate source that proves that the Kinky Kwartet is notable. They have been number 7 on Djibouti's national top 10 list for the past 4 weeks how do I make my article public again?

Tendentious article should not be permitted in Wikipedia! The JoC example

Silvio,

I would like to ask you help regarding one of the Headbomb`s writting. He clearly doesn`t understand one of our five pillars: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". His description of Journal of Cosmology has been quite tendencious, like a personal attack to the journal, using not adequate language, which indicate lack of etiquette and good faith. And certainly, this kind of article should not be permitted in Wikipedia. I rewrote the article (improved by other authors), pointing out the same facts, but with a neutral position, like an encyclopedic article shall be. But he insists in changing the article according to his personal view. Other authors have been contrary to his personal attacks, but he doesn`t care, insisting in changing the article to his version. What is possible to do in this critical case ? (BoomerRev)

I', sorry, but I believe that Headbomb's edits are perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's rules; to remove all sourced bits of info related to the alleged unrealiability of the journal would be a violation of WP:NPOV. However, please note that this is just my personal opinion as an editor; as an administrator, I believe there is nothing there for me to do, because this is just a content dispute. My advice would be to try and reach a consensus, dicussing on the article's talk page or try alternative dispute resolution methods. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article requests

Hi! Do you do article stub requests for the Italian Wikipedia? If so, I have some ideas on some articles to start WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm sort of a newbie, when it comes to it.wiki, because I've only made some thirty edits there and most of them were to add interwikilinks or remove vandalism from pages I was already reading: however, I'd be interested in your ideas! I'll try to be as much of help as I can! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

Hi! You appear to be involved with WP:UAA. As I am just getting started in this area, would you mind reviewing the blocks I've placed? I know the difference between who should and shouldn't be blocked, but I am a little less confident as to whether I am applying the right level of block. Thanks.--v/r - T P 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, congratulations on your promotion! And I'd be most glad to review your blocks!

Just a short disclaimer, though: when it comes to promotional usernames, I believe I'm one of the most lenient admins, because I prefer to use softerblocks, as they, coupled with swift speedy deletions, show the wannabe spammers that Wikipedia is not meant for advertisement and that there are many users and admins who are keeping their eyes open. I use spamublocks only when the intent to spam is particularly evident; usually, it's an editor who, despite being warned, has kept on creating the same article about their band/firm/whatever or adding the same link to existing articles over and over again. However, such decisions depend a lot upon the single admin's discretion and different admins have different criteria, which some times can even be anticipated.

As I've said, it's mostly about admin discretion, but I believe you used the setting I would have use every time, with the exception of JellyJumpMedia (talk · contribs) and FunApps (talk · contribs), whom I'd have softerblocked. So, all in all, nothing wrong there.

I'm just curious as to why you revoked Hangjing's ability to send e-mails and to edit their talk page and you disabled Oliverullman and Gofckurself's ability to send e-mails, these steps are exceptional and are usually adopted only when there has been a significant abuse, because they are needed if the blocked editor wants to have their block reviewed. That said, you're doing a good job! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I removed the talk page rights on Gofckurself and Oliverullman because they were creating attack pages. Oliverullman in particular was creating one on their userpage. As far as Hangjing, I felt they could be a spam bot or just wanted to spam a Nike add with copy and paste and I thought they would continue to do so on their talk page. If you think it's unjustified, I can certainly undo.--v/r - T P 00:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was a bit heavy-handed, I admit it, and, in my opinion, it would be better if you undid your action. As you'll certainly see, some users you block will write you an e-mail, asking for advice (and almost everyone will be most kind).

In this case it's highly unlikely they will ; however, my 2p is that only Oliverullman's revocation of talk page privilege was warranted but even then if it were up to me, I'd have preferred to see what they'd do after the block... After all, reblocks are cheap and so is revdel... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've started the discussion here. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

...needs revoked by worked up curmudgeon. Doesn't want to play nice. Is this something that you would like address? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing would make me happier, but I can't... I'm an involved admin, because I was in a content dispute with this editor regarding the Murder of Meredith Kercher; I'm sorry! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that...mea culpa. I will try to look for an uninvolved who knows some about the page history. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me

That's fine!! Greenmaven (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Thomas888b's talk page.
Message added 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP you blocked earlier today

Howdy,

Just pointing out User_talk:NawlinWiki#H.Ross Meatpuppet to you. While I can't go into specifics on wiki Nawlin would fill you (I think) but in any case that IP has essentially 0 chance of ever being used productively and could be blocked for a lot longer.

Cheers,

Egg Centric 19:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel of my block log

Hi there! I was wondering if a RevDel of my block log might be appropriate under criteria #6 for revision deletions? (I've normally never needed to look into RevDel policy, so I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not.) I was thinking about looking into adminship this summer (haven't fully made up my mind yet), and although the mistake should be obvious if anyone looks at the description you put in the block log and the comment you made on my talk page, I think the process might go a lot smoother if I don't have to worry about explaining why I have a block on my block log.

I do note that WP:RevDel#Log redaction says that "the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper", but I'm not sure if that covers when an admin hits a button by mistake versus a block that was ultimately found to be improper... Let me know what you think. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, under the current criteria, it would be abuse of the tool, so I cannot revdel that log entry... However, please do not let my mistake cause you to worry. If you run for adminship, that entry will never be any grounds for an oppose; it's evident it was a mistake — for which I'm really sorry! — and you have my message on your talk page (and, if you ask me before transcluding your RFA I'd be happy to add a very short statement there, explaining it).

Besides, revdelling the entry would only remove the date and my explanation for your block, but not the fact that you were once blocked... I'm really sorry I soiled your block log, but trust me, it will not even be mentioned, if you run for adminship. So you don't have to worry, really: all the people who indicate that they'll only support a candidate who was never blocked add unless (s)he was blocked in error. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't think it would really cause me problems at an RFA - I just thought it would keep it simple. You're right, a RevDel wouldn't really remove it, and the message on my talk page should be enough if it comes up. Didn't mean to make you feel guilty or anything - as I said, it was an obvious mistake (I compare it to when my mouse slips and I roll something back for vandalism when I meant to click on the user's talk page to tell them that they made a good contribution) :) Singularity42 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. But the offer to make a short statement on your RFA still stands: if you want it, just holler.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

No problem with that, you are right. Indeed, mediation would be good. I just want others to step in and give their opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me incorrect to delete referenced texts, only because they contradict personal opinion of some one. Here I am not heard and I was excluded, and finally threatened me because we had previous conflicts. regards.--GiovBag (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reporting

If user has promotional name but didn't edited yet.Should it be reported?--Shrike (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, in the end it all boils down to who's the patrolling admin at the time... This was discussed on the talk page, here and, basically, we merely acknowledged that there are admins who block even if the user has not edited, provided their username is definitely promotional and others, such as me, who prefer to wait in such cases. I'd chalk it up to admin discretion, after all both opinions are in keeping with the username policy. By the way, when a report is marked

Wait until the user edits., it is moved to the holding pen, so it is not lost.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops

Hi Salvio, I kinda goofed last night, and I apologize for that. I modified your block of User:Petey Parrot, but only to remove his talk page privileges; as I completely agreed with your decision. I forgot to come notify you or discuss it with you, and that is a common courtesy I should have thought of. his replies after your block I thought were simply being disruptive, and a bit silly I felt. It was not an intentional slight of you in the least, it's just that I was very tired, and forgot. Very sorry. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 20:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ched and thanks for your kind note; that guy was begging really hard to have his talk page priviliges revoked and you obliged him: you did the right thing!

But, please, do not apologise: there is no need; you did what any sysop would have done and, besides, I'm not territorial with my admin actions, anyone can undo or tweak them, provided they leave an informative summary, so I never construed it as an intentional slight. Hope to see you around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whew, .. very glad you weren't offended or upset by it. BTW, from what I've seen so far, I really appreciate your work here. See ya out there in "wiki-world" ... :) — Ched : ? 22:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring about a deleted page

Dear Mr. Giuliano,

I just wanted to write and inquire about the Student Coupons page that was recently deleted. Student Coupons is a credible, licensed LLC running a credible website. All content written on the Wikipedia page is explanatory and meant for the sole purpose of educating any viewers as to what the company and site is about. Student Coupons has over 10,000 registered student members and that figure is increasing exponentially each day. SC has been featured on NBC Philadelphia and blogged about (which I know is deemed uncredible by wiki editors) by notable tech startup bloggers.

I must admit, while I have been a wikipedia reader for years, I am new to writing/editting. I am hoping that this issue is on my part (ie writing style or incorrect citing). I would love some input from you as to how I can change my post to fit the guidelines set forth by wikipedia editors.

Thank you in advance,

John W. Kenneff

I didn't delete the article about Student Coupons, I merely softerblocked Student Coupons (talk · contribs), because the username was a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. The page was deleted by a fellow administrator, under speedy deletion criterion A7, as an article about an organization [...] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant; personally, I'd have deleted under criterion G11 as unambiguous promotion.

That said, if you wish to create an article about Student Coupons, my suggestion would be to first familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding: notability and conflicts of interest. Then, if you believe Student Coupons meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, having received significant coverage in thid-party, reliable sources, you could create a userspace draft in your userspace, here for instance, writing an article which complies with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and verifiability and, when you're through, you could ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Userpage

I earlier nominated RallyRaid UK for deletion for reasons of A7 and G11 and it was deleted. It appears that the page was userfied and you deleted the userfied version of the page. I really don't have much of an opinion on whether the userfied version should have been deleted or not, but I noticed you deleted it on the grounds that it was "dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" (G8). Doesn't that usually apply to talk pages? Oh wait, nevermind, the page was probably a redirect when you deleted it, wasn't it? Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got it!

The page was deleted, userfied, moved back to mainspace (leaving a redirect behind) and deleted again. I merely zapped the redirect, which was now pointing to a nonexistent page per speedy deletion criterion G8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal deletions

Hi, just a reminder that if you close an MfD of a portal as "delete", as you did with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:World Rally Championship, you have to check for subpages (portal and portal talk) and delete those as well. In fact, this one also had a redirect (Portal:WRC) and subpages of that name were redirects to the full-name version... I've recently added a batch deletion script to my monobook, which makes the task of mass page deletion much easier (see my recent deletion log for proof!) Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I checked the what links here, but missed the redirect and the subpages; thanks for seeing to it (and for the nifty tool, which I just snatched...)! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean gorter/Xin Wen

Hi Salvio. I think you forgot to delete User:Sean gorter/Xin Wen when you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sean gorter/Xin Wen. Cunard (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gone now. Thanks for your note! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTS

Hi, I followed the links and ended up in a loop. When i clicked ur article link i saw the real article. What could i have done wrong.

^Gavin _Perch talk 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Multiple thank yous

Hi Salvio!

Thank you for for sorting out the whole Mbsetv15 fuddle. Not one bit of Teh Dramahz in its resolution - Win-win outcome for all involved.
Belated thank you for allowing me the Wikipedia:File mover Wikipedia:Userright. I would like to think I'm quietly and cautiously using this.

Thanks again - --Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, it was my pleasure in both cases!

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]