User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 42

Contest Deletion

Hi Salvio, You recently deleted the article Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill, with the reason that there is already a page for this which is House of Prayer, Achill and I would like to kindly contest your decision. Firstly the correct name of this place is Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill" and secondly there has been a dispute by those 'running' the House of Prayer, Achill" page, that the information I have added about this is in some way 'hijacking' it and although written with due consideration to the policies of Wikipedia, they have repeatedly deleted the content. It appears that they may have an agenda on their article and do not wish for the balance of truth. Hence I would like to put this information under its factual name. I am not connected with the House of Prayer but have long had an interest in it and other sites of Marian Apparitions, hence my knowledge. Many thanks for your consideration and I await your decision. FluffyRug (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason why I deleted the page. You are currently engaged in a content dispute with other editors, because you'd like to place some bits of info in the article, whereas they disagree. In these cases, you're supposed to follow WP:DR and to try to reach a consensusual solution. You cannot fork the article, so that it fits your own point of view, I'm sorry.

My advice to you is to start talking about the issue with the other editors as soon as your block expires, accepting whatever consensus emerges from the discussion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice requested

I'm a newbie when it comes to page protection and blocking for vandalism. I saw the Galen Rowell request for semi - but I thought the point of semi was to cover when multiple IPs were vandalizing. If it is a single IP, I thought the preferred route is to block the IP. That said, the claim is that it is a school IP, so maybe I'm blocking too many users, and semi would be better. Your input requested.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional info - I looked at the contributions of the IP, all contributions are vandalism, and involve three different articles, so I am feeling more confident with my decision to block the IP rather than Semi one of the articles.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me apologise for my tardy reply – Reaper Eternal has already semied the article –.

However, in this case, personally, I'd have blocked the IP; after all, the various students can still edit logged in... In general, I agree with you that semiprotection should be reserved for articles being disrupted by multiple editors, whereas, when we're dealing with just one or two vandals, a block is more appropriate... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and no need for the apology, it wasn't an emergency. I just like to tread carefully in new waters. I'm happy to see the concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your caution perfectly well – there are certain areas of the 'pedia I try to avoid as much as possible for fear of messing up... –. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RFI

Hi. In reference to your resolution HERE, the page in question was protected after the other editor, in this edit war, last edited it into his form -- giving that user the upperhand in the dispute while incapacitating me to "play on a level field" over this content dispute.

I perfectly understand your inability to act on my 3RR request - and in fact was not surprised by it. I am not writing about your resolution.

I am writing you because I would like to proceed to correcting the article into the form that includes the official external, unbiased, and third party citation fulfilling the reliable source policy (the dispute was one where I provided a content citation yet the other editor wanted content to read in his UNCITED fashion). And I cannot identify the protecting admin, as the protection event was not registered in the article's "History" or "Talk" pages. (Guidelines HERE state contacting the protecting admin is a pre-step to requesting an article be unprotected). I am requesting your opinion on how I can proceed; namely, How can I identify the protecting admin so I can communicate with him?

My basis is that, according to page protection policy, protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure, nor to privilege some users over others in content disputes. ([1]) This may have been the case here, and I am ready to make my case in the approriate forum. So, again, I am here to get guidance on where I can find the protecting admin so I can address my questions to him. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Erm, actually I just tried to edit Jet engine and it seems to just be semi-protected, meaning that all autoconfirmed editors can edit it – and you're autoconfirmed –. Am I looking at the wrong article? Or is there something I'm not understanding? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. It appears you are correct and that the WP SOPA/PIPA blackout of yesterday may have interfered with my assessment. However, how can I find when and by whom was the page protected? Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

According to the protection log, the article was indefinitely protected by Anthony Appleyard due to excessive vandalism on 27 September 2010. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Henry Cornelius Burnett

Appears to have been vandalized by a botnet? Two similar, (sophisticated?) vandalism from two different IPs. Used a transparent image the size of the entire page which brings up autofellatio5.jpg when clicked on preventing easy reversion. Jim1138 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know who did that, but unfortunately whoever they were, they were good. Well, the article is now protected, so they won't be able to try that again. BTW, wow, you're fast! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just lucky. It took me awhile to figure out why the link select cursor was showing on the entire page. I was about ready to restart google chrome. Jim1138 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Problematic Editor

You refused to help when an undeniably-problematic editor who is clearly edit warring was reported for vandalism. You stated that I "should have explained what he was doing wrong on his talk page" when the messages we have left on his Talk page do so. Surely edit-warring in the face of consensus while ignoring one of the principle guidelines underlying this project and doing so while willfully ignoring the attempts of other editors to communicate with you crosses the border into vandalism at some point, no?

In any case, I wanted to let you know how frustrating it is for editors who ask for help to instead receive a brief lecture about the merits of bureaucracy that doesn't even match the facts of the situation. This seems to be happening with greater frequency as time goes on and it's to the detriment of the project. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sal, I read this diff too, it's ElKevbo's link, and I have to agree with ElKevbo. I am not here to jump you or pick on you; I am only agreeing that too often there are admins who almost seem to be making excuses for these vandals. We are editors who have been editing a great deal, only to have someone come to ruin things. When we ask for help with the vandalism, especially when the vandal refuses to communicate at all, we get rejected by the admins we ask to help us. You never did it to me, but I have to point out I did not appreciate you simply ignoring my own pleas for help from you a few weeks back.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologise publicly as I did privately to Salvio for this out-of-order remark. Dja, presently blocked for a week as a victim of vendetta.

User:CourageJFK

Thanks for taking care of this one - I was called to supper before I had time to be quite sure his film articles were nonsense. He'll want watching after his block. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it'll be necessary to keep an eye on him after his block expires. For a moment there, I admit I was tempted to indef him, but, in the end, in the best tradition of WP:ROPE, I preferred to just fire a shot across the bow... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yeah, it's a wacko who's been doing this for some time via anon IPs, who's all been targeting Claudia Black and Rango (2011 film). He's got quite a history. He died down for a time, but I see he's back with a vengeance. Thank you for being so considerate and pro-active! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Odd_RevDel_result

Just out of curiosity (and without revealing too much details), can you weight in on this issue? Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the kind message! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Simon nelson

One of his first edits after your final warning? Unreferenced information about a BLP. I despair. GiantSnowman 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in two minds now, regarding that unsourced edit... Simon made it immediately after I warned him about the importance of Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, so it's evident he did not pay the slightest heed to my words and that would certainly warrant a block. On the other hand, the edit was actually correct and could be easily sourced (as you did, which is commendable, by the way). So I can't really make up my mind whether to block. I think I'd better sleep on it – this reply is only meant to let you know I'm not ignoring your message! – Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also in two minds - there's certainly merit in adding correct information (and I don't think any of his additions are incorrect, by and large) but such information is unreferenced and in some cases unverifiable (transfer news for a professional sportsman is easy to find; obscure playing statistics much less so) and therefore problematic. He has started to add basic edit summaries (occasionally) which shows a small degree of willingness to improve/listen, but the fact that he continues to add unsourced information about BLPs is not good at all. GiantSnowman 10:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed he's starting to use edit summaries; well, that's certainly a good thing!

And I wholeheartedly agree that the correction of outdated bits of info is valuable; though to consistently do so without providing sources is highly problematic.

To tell you the truth, I'd be inclined to play dumb and let this one edit slide... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's assume good faith for now - but if he continues to pluck stats or former teams out of seemingly thin air, I'll let you know. Thanks for your assistance on this. GiantSnowman 10:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My Rollback

Could you pleases explain why I have lack of experience? Thanks,--Rubinkumar^Talk 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course: you've been here a little over a month and you have made no vandal reversion – actually, you only have 104 edits to mainspace, which is the most important namespace, considering Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia –. Since you have not made even one vandalism reversion, I cannot foresee how you'll use the rollback tool – and, to be honest, you seem a bit too anxious to get this flag –. Fight vandalism the old-fashioned way for a couple of months, use Twinkle if you can, and then ask again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Would this edit qualify for a level 4im warning then? I'm more used to the it.wiki system where I would immediately block an user for personal attacks such as that. --Mark91it's my world 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Spearking in general, I find it unnecessary – actually, downright superfluous – to issue four escalating warnings when an editor is clearly up to no good as this was one was. Depending on the admin you find, that edit would either qualify for a level 4im or an outright block, I'd wager.

Honestly, I don't think we need to warn people that calling someone else names is not kosher here. And, entre nous, despite being an en.wiki admin, with regard to personal attacks, I follow it.wiki system... . Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Madurai Airport

Semi'd? Content dispute happens to be between an IP and a registered user. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, but the registered user is not autoconfirmed yet and won't be until the 29th. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks. Didn't know that. BTW, this user is giving an impression that he/she is editing on behalf of a company, please see the post here. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio giuliano,

I've been keeping track and am a major contributor to the Stop online piracy act article. The article has been recently overhauled which has cut down substantially on the rate of editing, there was one edit only on I think it was yesterday? The talkpage has been overhauled with a similar organizing treatment, and it has, well, it's not too bad. The third dynamic is the falling readership and interest in the topic. I would like the article unlocked to test out and see where it goes on vandalism, because it would be much reduced now. I personally aren't tolerant of vandalism, but I invariably attack the cause, not the symptom. It would help me to pinpoint the problem areas (probably in the body of the article). Thanks !! Penyulap _talk 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article is about a very sensitive topic, one many people have very strong opinions about, and has been targeted by vandals repeatedly – which has led to increasingly long periods of semiprotection –. Personally, I don't think it's safe to unprotect it, for the moment, so I feel I have to decline your request; if you wish to have my decision reviewed, do feel free to file a request on WP:RFPP. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No no, that's all good, I just thought I'd ask and let you know what is going on. I'd like to maybe ask for a trial period of a few hours in a week or two to see how it goes, it doesn't suck as much as it used to, the talkpage discussions about trying to fix split problems have vanished. Still neutrality issues open, but like I said, not much editing. Anyhow, I'll come back later. Thank you Salvio. Penyulap _talk 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MFD closure

Regarding |this closure... given there was only a singular respondent, is it fair to say there is any kind of consensus? Wouldn't a relisting and/or a "no consensus to delete" be more appropriate? Not meaning to sound nit-picky; just an inquiry. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I actually thought about relisting the debate, but, since it had already been open for a fortnight without anybody posting a comment during the previous week, I thought it would be quite useless – sadly, many MFDs receive close to no attention –; regarding the distinction keep/no consensus, I chose to close as keep because, in my opinion, there was no policy-based argument advanced for deletion. In hindsight, honestly, I could probably as well have skipped this subtle distinction made in my head and closed the discussion as no consensus... If you feel strongly about this, I have no objections to amending my closure to no consensus'. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No need to change your wording on my questioning alone; I only ask because I try to update my understanding when I'm surprised by a decision. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sal, help!

Sal, I can't help first apologising to you for my previous comment and also asking for your help. I have been blocked for a week. It was unfair and was a vendetta attitude. Over nothing. Please see User Talk:Djathinkimacowboy. I don't expect much, just a fresh pair of eyes- certainly do not want to get you in trouble.

So! The attitude was, "the way Wikipedia works" is someone posts a few ugly truths and they get blocked for a week! And let this be a clear statement: I won' be silenced unjustly. I took it when I was blocked 24 hours- not now Sal, I once read on here somewhere: "Administrators are nothing more than editors with a few extra buttons." Well, this proves it, they have buttons they do not deserve and I'm fed up with these administrative abuses.

I'm about to write you an email. Please, hang in there a minute. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

Guess you beat me to it. Protection is the way to go. I do not understand the recent history--I thought all those editors with the exception of Suenahrme were on the same track. It's a bit like the blind leading the blind: I'm not sure if any of them have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policies and editing guidelines, and certainly some of them don't get it in the first place. What this article needs is some heavy hitters with content knowledge, or this protection will have to be ongoing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear! Unfortunately I know absolutely nothing about the topic, so it was a bit hard to understand who wanted what... But the edit warring was getting ridicolous. I hope that some experienced editor more familiar with the topic area than I am will be able to get those users to talk and they'll not start the edit war again as soon as my protection expires... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for locking the page. Can you please revert the page before Suenahrme removed all of our changes. He was warned not to make any changes without consensus from all the editors but he went ahead and removed our writeup. And he is now telling us why he removed it. Can you please revert back the page and we can address his reasons for undoing our changes. Ali Wiki already offered an olive branch to talk about his concerns. But he remove other people changes. My comment to him here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=473268257&oldid=473266987

• You all keep asking administrators to revert to the version you like. (I assume this is Xareen?) You do not seem to understand how it works: not like that. You must solve these issues on the talk page. We will not help you by reverting to and then protecting the version you want to see. Please do not ask this question again. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, do you remember giving us warning in edit warring. The person who reverted the page was given a warning and told not to revert the page. He did not talk to the editors or tried to resolve the dispute. You told everyone not to play the reverting game. But he played it again. The evidence is there on the page history. You can check it for yourself. Xareen (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree with Drmies here. Protection is not an endorsement of a version over another; admins are expected to protect the article in the state they find it, unless there are copyright or BLP violations, which, as far as I could see, are not present in this case. If I were to revert to your favourite version after protecting the page I'd be taking sides in the content dispute and thereby abusing the tools.

    You should leave the article be for the moment and concentrate on solving this dispute following the steps indicated here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, after exchanging thousands words yesterday with another editor, I am not sure what to do. I am at lost on how I can proceed if they don't allow me say anything. please help. Xareen (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship Captain

Does the afd result, redirect to Costa Concordia disaster, mean we can never start an article on Schettino? I was thinking of at least making a section in the main article about his role and comments. If that section gets big enough, we could think of spinning off some of it to Francesco Schettino. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, consensus can change, after all. The AfD result only means that, at the present time, Schettino is not considered notable enough to have his own article; if, in the future, the situation were to change, then you could start a deletion review to vacate this conclusion or, alternatively, even decide to follow WP:BRD, by directly recreating the article and seeing if anyone objects to it or takes it to AfD again.

That said, the issue of creating a section on Schettino in the main article is best discussed on the talk page. I can confirm that there is nothing in the AfD I closed preventing anyone from creating such a section. It's a content dispute that should be solved by consensus, as usual. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Page for the poet Simon R Gladdish

Hello Salvio

I wonder if you can help me please. I have amended, corrected and re-written my biography on the poet Simon R Gladdish after I received the dreaded 'Cite Error' message. I have included 19 links and 1 reference but can't seem to make the reflist tag work so the reference is not visible when clicked on in preview. Is there some simple way I can rectify this? I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards from Riccardito (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You should add the following magic words at the end of the article, before {{DEFAULTSORT:Gladdish, Simon R.}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Buongiorno da Campora San Giovanni e gentile richiesta di miglioria e traduzione dell'articolo concernete Campora San Giovanni

Buongiorno da Campora San Giovanni,

ti scrivo anzituttto per salutarti ed augurarti un buon weekend qualora non ci dovessimo sentire prima. Oltre a questo ti scrivo per chiederti se molto gentilmente potresti portare agli onori Campora San Giovanni, mio borgo natio, bisogna di una leggera allungata e aggiornamento dati, io ho fatto del mio meglio nelle possibilità, adesso se vuoi aiutarmi sarò ben lieto di ricambiare la cortesia, con qualche altra traduzione in cambio. se puoi farlo fammi sapere appena puoi, grazie per tutto di vero cuore :)--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(in Italian) Ehilà Luigi, felice weekend anche a te! Guarda, ti dico la verità, io tendo ad essere un wikignomo ed ad occuparmi del dietro le quinte di Wikipedia; non produco molto contenuto... Fatta questa doverosa precisazione, dimmi che ti serve di preciso. Non posso garantire che sarò molto utile, ma sarò felice di vedere che cosa riesco a fare.

(in English) Howdy Luigi and a happy weekend to you too! A disclaimer first: let me be honest, I tend to be a wikignome and to concentrate more on the behind-the-scene work than on the creation of content... Now, tell me what what you need. I can't guarantee I'll be of much help, but I'll be glad to see what I can do. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Buon Pomeriggio di Nuovo, bene ti dirò che il tuo contributo sarà sempre più positivo 1000 volte più di quanto pensi tu :) ti definirei wikiangelocustode, bene, avrei bisogno di una inglesizzata, ampliata, miglioria e aggiornatina alla pagina del mio paesello. Alcuni paesani che vivono nei paesi anglosassoni non conoscono molto bene la lingua italiana, e nelle wikineolatine sono un asso, ma in altro chiedo sempre aiuto. Quello che gentilmente ti chiedo è di fare una traduzione dell'italiano quasi simile alla pagina della Wikipedia tricolore. se hai bisogno di altro sono a tua completa disposizione. Per l'inglese un tempo mi aiutava mia cugina ma adesso è impegnanta a capofitto nelle lezioni di inglese (essendo lei docente di madrelingua) e con la vita di mamma, sposa e nuora :) bene che dire...grazie per tutto ed alla prossima :)--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)