User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 30

Anti-Vandalism.

	The Sweeper.
	For cleaning up Wikipedia and sweeping away the dirt (edit trolls). D Namtar 14:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks; you've been most kind! It's always good to see one's efforts get appreciated! Hope to see you around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

RFPP

Sorry, Twinkle didn't carry over my RFPP message for some reason; I was trying to request another admin to review the protection, because I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article. Since the protection was specifically for WP:BLP reasons, I felt I was justified in making the protection anyway, but wanted confirmation. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I believed you wanted to use Twinkle to protect the page and, instead, reported it to RFPP (I usually do that with CSD tags... Ehm...); that said, well, honestly, I believe I'd just have blocked the IP editor for edit warring; however, considerng the kid is now having fun IP hopping, your protection appears indeed warranted! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Abandoned Drafts

Hi Salvio giuliano, I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. You have moved 2 drafts there correctly so I think that you would do well. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind invitation, but I fear I have to pass; I moved those two drafts to the WikiProject because that was the consensus reached during two different MfDs; I'll gladly keep on moving drafts there in those occasions, but I fear I don't really have the time to "adopt" any of them... I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You may get them to the wikiproject, you don't need to adopt. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help re: the recent spate of incoming attacks etc. Do these people ever get bored? - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! These guys usually get bored after a couple of blocks and page protections; let's hope this particular happy customer is not too persistent... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Ezekiel53746's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:UAA question

I see you responded to my report in the WP:UAA. If the user doesn't change his name, should I leave that report or re-report it? -- Luke (Talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming no admin disagrees with me, the report will be moved to the holding pen, where it'll be kept for a week; if they edit again, without asking for a rename, they'll be blocked. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Joshurtree's subpages

Hi, is there any way those pages can be deleted without having to go through a massive debate about them. They haven't been edited in years and it looks like the user has no intention of using them. They actually serve no purpose, so why do they exist? – PeeJay 14:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I fear there is not, unfortunately; you'll have to go through MfD, as they do not qualify for speedy deletion (and PRODs cannot be used on pages in userspace). I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your endorsement of a block was overided

User 08OceanBeach SD was blocked by administrator Fastily [1]. He filled an unblock request and it was denied by you [2] who endorsed Fastily's reasons to block him for the second time. User then filled another unblock request (using the same template) arguing that "he understands now the 3RR" and saying he was not gambling with the system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this time adminsitrator Jpgordon accepted the request. I believe (but I'm unsure) that you can't appeal an unblock for the second time, but directly to the administrator that blocked you, as you suggested to OceanBeach.

Accordingly with WP, once a block is reviewed, endorsed and the unblock request denied by another administrator different than the sanctioning administrator, another one "should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy)".

In my opinion administrator Jpgordon is missing out very valuable information (2nd. block [3], 1st. block^[4]), such as the fact that 08OceanBeach SD has been blocked in the past for the same reason (and dismissing the opinion of other users involved in a talk) and that he aknowledged the 3RR and edit-warring policy very well. In simple words, he was already well aware of these policies but this time he went further and tried to gamble with the system by returning to edit-war past the 24 hour period. This was the main reason that you, the first reviewing administrator, denied his unblock request and endorsed Fastily's 1 week block.

I think this is important and that's why I'm asking you to take notice of this and do whatever is necessary if this unblock was illegally or poorly lifted. In my experience user 08OceanBeach SD is a hard-line editor who is never willing to take other users' opinions, unless there's a bunch of them agaist (and not always, as proved in the first block request weeks ago). Thanks. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed to request as many unblocks as you wish, though if the number of requests rise to the level of disruption, your ability to edit your talk page may be revoked. That said, blocks are preventative and not punitive, which means that if you show that you understand the reasons for your block and undertake not to cause any further disruption, the block will be lifted.

In this case, he wrote a very good unblock request (had I seen it, I'd probably have been the one unblocking). Should he start edit warring again, he'll be blocked again. In short, the block had outlasted its usefulness. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification - Apology

Hi there SALVIO, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding this "user" from Colombia (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.79.135), the situation has escalated beyond control, this punk has increased his bombardment, now resorting to vile racist insults, all this because of a run-in in the Quique Flores, a neverending one might i add. I was never unpolite to him, only tried to explain the consensus we at the football forums had reached, and several people have reverted him in said article, not just me, and he continues to attack only me! The harshest thing i told him - and AFTER he started vandalizing my userpage, never BEFORE - was if he had mental problems it was not my fault, asking to be left alone.

I am sorry, i did not control myself and responded in the only manner this folks understand, leaving an offensive message in his account, User:Xxxx693. If you feel i merit a block, i will not hold any grudge, nor will i contest it.

Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this part of your message, hijo de la gran puta racista, ojalá te mueras, vete al infierno! Ahora sí ya tienes la razón que buscabas para insultarme, animal maleducado!, is incredibly offensive and, if I may, can actually be rather counterproductive; you should always ignore the trolls, not antagonise them, thereby feeding them. Else you'll never get rid of them. And, besides, those are rather egregious personal attacks. This time, I'd be inclined to let you off with a stern warning, considering you were harassed; however, seriously do not do that again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. I suffer from a bipolar condition (not kidding, 100% true) which makes it very hard to control myself in these situations. Regarding this troll, he started vandalizing my page when i had been nothing than polite to him, trying to redirect him towards the proper discussion panels, and now the personal attacks. He escalated the situation, not me, but you are correct, i should not have descended to that level, NEVER, i am sorry for giving WP a bad name (also, if there is a way to summarily remove my offensive message - i have seen messages removed by admins on some occasions - i would highly appreciate it).

Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it rises to such a level of disruption as to warrant revdel; so, just remove it. And forget all about him, if you can. He can't really do anything, just insult you. And, if you let him get to you, he basically wins... Just revert him and report him to WP:AIV, where he'll be rapidly blocked. If you do not feed him, he'll soon get bored and leave you alone. In the meantime, we have blocks and protections to stop him. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatting at ANI

You recently hatted a sub-section of the ThisThat2011 ANI case with the subject line "hatting drama". I do not see why you perceive my edits to that section as drama, especially since my post was made in the context of the recent outreach efforts by the Wikimedia foundation to recruit about 1000 students from the Pune region to edit on Wikipedia (Relevant e-mail). I felt it was important to point out that the Indian geography is different from other parts of the world (in terms of population density and other related factors) and reckless talk of blocking of an entire network contradicts with the Wikimedia Foundation's goals in the Pune region. I would request that you please un-hat relevant portions of the discussion. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that subsection consisted almost entirely of unproductive recrimination, which risked derailing the discussion; your post, albeit not recrimination, was incredibly off-topic, as the thread deals with Thisthat's behaviour. So, I feel I have to decline your request. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FuFoFuEd made a threat to block an entire network backbone in India at 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC) and I responded to it explaining why it would be a bad idea to do so at 04:19 on 28 August 2011 (UTC). Your hatting came at 12:07 on 28 August 2011 (UTC). I am troubled by how long FuFoFuEd's threat was allowed to stand without any objection. Here's a straight-forward and non-rhetorical question - are you absolutely sure that you are taking an absolutely neutral stand on these matters? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in various content disputes, both as an admin and as a party, and it is my experience that people often consider neutral only those who share their opinions...

I come from Italy and my only ties to India are these two facts: that I've been wishing to visit it for quite some time and that, back when I was attending Law school, I familiarised myself with Hindu law. So, yes, I believe that in this case I'm as neutral as one can get, which doesn't mean, however, that I have no opinions, but it merely means that I have no preconceptions and that my opinions are the consequence of what everyone has to say during a given discussion. Which leads us back to my original point: that subsection wasn't really useful, in my opinion, because it consisted almost entirely of idle recrimination and what wasn't recrimination was off-topic, as I said before; quite frankly, the “threat” was neither serious nor believable, as nobody in their right mind would ever rangeblock so many people, but apart from that it had asolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand: namely Thisthat's conduct and not rangeblocks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the hatting has been side-stepped anyway now, by what are almost certainly IP socks. It doesn't take much imagination to realise who they are targeting, bearing in mind that I am from northern England & they know it. Unfortunately for them, my only involvement with the particular point in question has been to revert deletions of cited info & provide additional cites when people have contested the issue. In every case, the statement already existed before my involvement. Ho hum, another day in the increasingly bizarre WP world :) - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: additional content mentioned above is now hatted also. It seems that just about the only thing not yet discussed is how to get a square peg into a round hole. Give me 10 minutes and I'll fix that omission. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Rollbacker

Hi Salvio. Thanks for the rollback feature. If i'm in troubles, or maybe, if if i have doubts, i'll contact you.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 09:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sei sempre il benvenuto in questi luoghi. (You're always welcome here). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Vivek_Kumar_Pandey

Hi. Can you point me toward the original MFD before it was relisted? I am tempted to speedy close this as WP:SNOW due to all of the SPA and Socking involved but I wanted to be fully informed first.--v/r - TP 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I relisted the MfD not because I was unsure of the result — sockpuppetry was rather eviden there... —, but because the userpage had been edited in a rather significant way in the meantime (from something looking like this to this) and so I felt uncomfortable deleting it... Especially considering the fact that one of the delete-!voters indicated that, after the changes, the page looked reasonable. I wanted to let anyone express their opinion on the "new" userpage, if they so wished. As usual, if you disagree, feel free to zap. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think later tonight I'll close the MDF, delete the user page and just restore the lastest revisions that don't contain the fake article material.--v/r - TP 22:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea! Erm... I don't know why I didn't think of it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TParis, after the user page was revised, there were two additional "delete" votes, one of which was mine. I maintain that the page remains a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING with the excessive number of promotional external links. There remains a consensus to delete the page in its current form. If you are going to close the debate as "keep" after deleting the earlier revisions, please remove the promotional external links prior to deleting and restoring the page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into each link. I've seen user pages that link to articles in the news that mention the users themselves and I don't think this is generally a problem. I'll make sure they arn't promotional in nature or primary sources though.--v/r - TP 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed all the links and I saw nothing inappropriate. They seem to be confirming he is an authority in his field which I don't see as a problem.--v/r - TP 03:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an argument to make in the MfD, not the closure. The links are inappropriate because they give the impression that the user page is an article. User pages do not need a "References" section with six references.

They seem to be confirming he is an authority in his field – after several unsuccessful attempts at promotion, this MfD close finally enables him to promote himself on Wikipedia. The "delete" votes were very vocal that this WP:FAKEARTICLE should be deleted to prevent the user from promoting himself. I again ask you to remove the references section. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the various "references" as a userpage is not a Wikipedia article, removed the various categories per WP:USERNOCAT and added a {{userpage}}. Let's see if my changes stick... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Block change

FYI, I made the following changes to your 60 hour block of 86.161.34.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) due to abusive editing of the talk page: I reblocked the user for 1 week and revoked talk page access. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note (and for taking care of the abuse coming from the IP)! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Bitner

Thank you for moving Richard Bitner to mainspace and adding categories to it. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm

Just in regards to [5]; typically this would usually only be done after the block has achieved some 'permanence'. Keep in mind that an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent one, or one that will necessarily be in place for a long time. It is my understanding that the user still plans to submit additional unblock proposals and (imo) removing the permissions at this stage seems a bit premature and may send the wrong signal. –xeno^talk 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Feel free to restore them, if you wish... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth cooke245 pages

Thanks for what you did just now. Perhaps you could salt all those articles to stop them being recreated, as you will see from the logs that this is repeated pattern of abuse. Take a look also at the articles created by the same user that were also just deleted by JohnCD‎ (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure; I've just salted some of the pages which have been repeatedly recreated. I must admit that the main article for a moment fooled me, because it seemed something believable, at least until I saw that it was a copy of The Whitest Kids U' Know... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Inks.LWC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Inks.LWC (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

JustMonkeying Children's Library

Dear Salvio

Greetings

This is with reference to the deletion of Justmonkeying Childen's Library. I would like to make the following points just for your reference

1. Ahmedabad city with a population of over 5 Million does not have a dedicated Children's Library. 2. The only Libraries are Toy/Book Libraries for the elite( Franchise Libraries) and actually carry a collection of say 800 books 3.JustMonkeying is a community based Children's Library running out of a converted living room with subscriptions at $2 a month.

Please do understand that , reading and especially reading for children in not a priority in underdeveloped countries and this library has been financed by concerned individuals who want to make a difference to the world around them . And as a parting citation since your profession is that of a Lawyer , there are several Children's Libraries listed in Wiki and that too with a great deal of spelling errors

Thanks And Regards

Najanaja67 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point and I actually simpathise with your intent; what this library is doing is indeed commendable, however, sadly, Wikipedia has notability requirements, meaning that only subject which have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources qualify for inclusion. In this case, the library does not meet this threshold... I'm really sorry, but these are the rules.

I don't know if this can be useful to you, but here you can find a list of alternative outlets which have different requirements. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Leg cross spam article

Take a look at the "references" for Leg cross - they're spam links promoting external websites. That's why I nominated it for speedy deletion. The article appears to exist only to promote those links. Prioryman (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

They can be removed (I'll do so momentarily); this does not justify speedy deletion under G11, though, as the article per se is not unambiguous promotion. It's certainly unencyclopaedic, but, in my opinion, no speedy deletion criterion is applicable, in this case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

deleted page

just dont understand why you deleted a page that was under construction and not yet finished?Rsm66 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, as an article which did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. I'm sorry I didn't allow you to finish it; I wrongly assumed you were through with it. However, I've just userfied it for you, meaning I've restore the article and moved it to your userspace, where you'll be able to edit it and improve it. When you're finished, you can move it back to the article mainspace. Before doing so, however, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. The page is now located here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)