Wikipedia

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 73

< User talk:Salvio giuliano
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Salvio giuliano in topic ARBIP

YOUR REMARKS ON MY TALK PAGE

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Salvio,

The links that I have provided are informatory in nature. Though it is a practice to provide inbound links of Wikipedia only, but sometimes information is available at other sources as reference also.

It is true that links were provided, but, I have provided quality content in wikipedia.

I believe that you should avoid doing such actions. In future, if you do it again, I will follow each of your article to check each source of your information or otherwise. In this way, we can keep a check on each other.

Regards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vishaldogra120

You are welcome to do it, but please be aware of WP:HOUND – whose violations might result in a block on your account. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

French lawyers

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your mention of 'excès de pouvoir' led me to these pages that I thought might interest you: Prosper Weil and Gaston Jèze (technically the latter wasn't a lawyer, I don't think). Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, a couple of transalpine colleagues... Actually, I was surprised to see that we have no article about the concept, seeing as it is quite important in French law (by the way, as it happens, the Italians stole the idea, see eccesso di potere, but we don't have an article about it either). When I have a bit of spare time I might take a crack at writing one of those articles... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD + AFC

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Salvio, you were the closer on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay-P. Could you tell me if the current AFC article Draft:Jay-P is sufficiently different from the deleted version to survive CSD? The draft does include several sources discussing the subject, so it passes my smell test, but as I cannot see the previous version I don't want to move it into mainspace if its the same as what was already nuked. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored the article and userfied, so there are no deleted revisions; the version that I originally deleted is this one. I have skimmed through the article and I see that the sources mentioned are almost entirely different, though the style is still very much inappropriate. Jay-P describes his music as The Notorious B.I.G driving 2PAC to a Snoop Dogg gig but getting crushed under the wheels of R Kelly's tour bus while arguing over whether to listen to "Hear My Train A Comin" by Jimi Hendrix or "My Way" by Frank Sinatra, wait what? Or Having abandoned the life of crime he led to pursue his musical dream,Jay-P encourages others to come clean before. Accomplishing dreams is possible without necessarily engaging in crime or contraband. In my opinion, the draft should be declined... Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility Bigotry case request

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Salvio. I see from your comments on the case page that you think this case request is about "swearing". It is not. It is about comments that demean fellow editors with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Imagine you are walking home and you hear someone on the street swearing. It happens. I usually just avoid eye contact and move on. Now, since you have said you are Italian, imagine that same person using a racial slur for Italians. Maybe this time you would look over your shoulder or cross the street. Now imagine a whole group of people standing on a street corner, and every day when you walk by, they start shouting ethnic slurs for Italians. Maybe illegal in some areas, maybe not, unless it was accompanied by violence. Now, imagine if, the next time you walk by, they start combining slurs against Italians with swear words. Feeling intimidated yet? If this was my neighborhood, I would advise you next time to take a different route.

But the comment being objected to on the case request is not from an outside blog. The comment was made front and center on a high profile (Jimbo's) talk page, and in the context of a group of similar remarks by other users across several other high profile pages. So maybe this is a more accurate analogy:

Someone posts a sign with an anti-Italian slur outside your work cubicle. Every day when you go to work, you have to walk past the sign, and every day people post new signs with anti-Italian slogans. You ask them to take the signs down, but they stonewall. You complain to the management, but they just smile and nod to the people who are writing the signs. Then they pay someone to find out why there are not more Italians in the organization.

At this point, maybe it would help to look at the actual comment in question. No one has provided a diff yet that I can see; the diff is here. Here is the actual comment (my emphasis added):

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. Hell in a Bucket 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The central assertion is that words do not matter, and that racial and ethnic slurs are completely acceptable. The message is delivered in the most racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language possible, and reinforced by an army of intimidating vulgarities, f-bombs, and personal characterizations. This type of bullying, exclusionary language has no place on Wikipedia and there should be no question at all about removing it. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that your argument, here, is for the most part fallacious, in that, in your examples, the slur is generally aimed at somebody in particular, which is something that in this case did not happen. As Brad has already pointed out, there is a difference between using a slur and merely mentioning it; in the edit which started all this, HiaB was not *using* the slurs, but rather he was just referring to them – in an attempt to be theatrical, I'd add. Aside from that, you also invoke a principle we passed in the Manning case, but, in that case, there were editors who were using transphobic language with regard to an identifiable person. Again, this did not happen here. In this case, since HiaB was merely mentioning slurs (along with other 4-letter words), his edit merely violated the civility policy and not NPA (or our principle, for that matter). Which basically leads us back to square one: there is no consensus in the community as to how to enforce the civility policy (and even as to what is uncivil). Now, I have my personal opinion, but that's just that: my personal opinion and I can't just impose it by fiat on the community merely because I happen to be an arbitrator. For what it's worth, I endorse TParis's suggestion to hold an RfC and see where that leads us, because until the community establishes a set of standards dealing with incivility, there will continue to be discussions, discontent, drama and ArbCom case requests... Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

Dear Salvio giuliano, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Roma locuta, causa soluta

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

Rome has spoken, and the case has been solved. Who is Rome? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wondered that. It could be Newyorkbrad, whose comment immediately preceded it and whose sagcacity is something of an institutional cliche. Of course, NYB was quoting Horace, so the "Roma" was a nice bit of wordplay if I'm correct. Interesting that two lawyers were quick to dismiss someone whom I have always thought to be a wikilawyer (I'm assuming Sandstein isn't actually a lawyer but might be wrong). In any event, the entire farrago is now resolved and it was a fair outcome. As I said in the discussion at ARE, a dose of common sense was needed and that is something that is often absent in the wacky world of Wikipedia process wonkery. Some people need to get a life. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, our good NYB was indeed the person I was jokingly referring to – for the reasons that Sitush has correctly identified. Sit, would you like becoming my spokesman?   More seriously, I have often said that even when enforcing ArbCom sanctions, admins should still user their common sense; the fact we have made a decision on a given issue ought not to rob them of that. Not all admins agree with me – some say that once we have restricted a user, then their hands are tied and they have to enforce our decision as literally as possible... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
On this point, if you haven't already seen it, you all might be interested in my comments here, and especially the law-review piece I link to at the end. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember reading it once, when you mentioned it on the mailing list (or on Wikipedia, I don't remember), agreeing with you and loving the essay. I was actually trying to find it a couple of weeks ago, when a friend invited me to give a brief lecture to her students on the varying ways different systems have of interpreting legal texts, but obviously couldn't find it for my life... Heh, I have now downloaded a copy... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(watching) Interesting reading "here"! Could it be that the word "be" is missing in the sentence after the list? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing, Newyorkbrad. Looking at the cases, would police ever evaluate that the spirit of the sign is to protect the park and its users, so check if the "animal" does something negative to the park, like dirt or noise, and let "animals" pass which/who don't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Excellent! Of course, it is the very fact that legislators cannot reasonably foresee/account for every eventuality that often puts the burden of interpretation on the courts. In a situation such as the recent one involving Pigsonthewing/Nikkimaria etc, the legislators were, effectively, ArbCom and the courts are AE.
BTW, I have my own legal problems at User_talk:Jrh1980#Sourcing. Yet another new user who is going for the nuclear option in relation to caste subjects. I've lost count of the number of times I've been threatened with legal action here. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Soluta: we have some peace music on the Main page, good news from Ukraine for a change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As a non-native speaker of English, I would like to learn if "no violation" can have any other meaning than "no violation"?
It looks like the articles in Andy's BBC project get their infoboxes the normal way, by editors who collaborate and agree that articles of these topics should have infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk about the blind leading the blind... More seriously, an edit may not be a violation of an editor's restriction, and, at the same time, be a demonstration of his problematic approach to the issue at hand, which, in turn, makes it unwise to lift the restriction in question. In this case, Andy did not violate his topic ban, but his actions were a clear case of boundary testing, which is inappropriate. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Testing? Testing what? - Andy made an edit helping a user and improving an article. He was asked to revert it. Would you do such a thing? - I consider the infobox war over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether I'd self-revert, in a similar case, is neither here nor there, seeing as I'm not topic banned. Gerda, you need to understand that edits don't generally exist in a void: they have a context, which includes the editing history of the person making them, and that context cannot be overlooked. The context for Andy's edits concerning infoboxes is extremely problematic: he was so disruptive that he almost got banned over them.

The point is that if an editor has been banned from a topic area, it means that his participation there has been so disruptive that it has been deemed necessary to expel him from it. All edits by a restricted editor to the topic he was banned from are presumed to be disruptive. And it is a very strong presumption, because of the baggage which accompanies them, i.e. the context in which they are made.

Which means that what to you may look like Andy improving an article, to others, such as me, it looks like him testing the boundaries of his restriction: he's banned from adding infoboxes and he's trying to see how far he can go without being blocked.

Also, while for you the infobox war is over, this opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The blind: Did you see an enjoyable ride on the Main page, by some editors you might assume are on different sides of a war? Same thing for Anna Kravtchenko, mentioned under peace music. The best thing you can do about the so-called war is ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind

Today is a birthday, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Did you see the infobox? I like it. Andris Nelsons might have one like that, but now I am restricted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Look at this! Where do you see a battle? We so-called infobox warriors deal respectfully with each other, and have done so on Wagner's birthday last year. If you can show me a battle after December 2012 I will learn something new. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind is TFA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Now please lead me: how can formatting a malformed infobox, clearly a benefit for the project, be interpreted as "testing the borders"? I agree with no foul. play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination, in case you missed it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In case of interest, a related discussion was started on my talk. Feel free to join, but please don't "disruption" again without a recent example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Erik Ron

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. You deleted a page that was created in my name, and I am asking that you please restore it. Many people look up my page as a reference to work I have done and want to look it up on this page as opposed to others. It is unfair that my page is deleted and plenty of other producers that are exact levels of notoriety are still up with no issues. Perception is very important in my line of work, and would very much appreciate the page being restored so that accurate referenced information can remain on here.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ron, I'm very sorry, but I can't do that. To qualify for inclusion, a person has to be "notable", which, in wiki-speak, generally means that the person must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (although musicians are also considered notable if they satisfy one of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO). In your case, unfortunately, you do not appear to be wiki-notable, in that though you have been mentioned in various reliable sources, you have not received significant coverage. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RapLists4me

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey there. I understand that the profile that was once User:RapLists4Me was full of all fictional information. I created that page almost six years ago when I was much younger and had a very creative mind and a list of fictional rappers who I created to run a fictional world. Now I know it all sounds very bizarre, and it is true. I was just curious if I could retain the information personally just for nostalgic purposes? If this could happen, please let me know I highly appreciate it. Thank you.

Also, if not could you un-delete the page and allow me to save all of the information for a 24 hour period (I'll settle for less, 24 hours seems like a good time period assuming this message may take that amount of time to be responded and read by both parties)

Thank you once again.

I's a deal. I'll restore the page for 24 hours and then I'll delete it again. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jairo Mazzagardi, Randall L. Ridd, and Larry Y. Wilson

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A while back, consensus was gained for the deletion of articles about Jairo Mazzagardi, Randall L. Ridd, and Larry Y. Wilson. Because of that consensus, you closed the discussions and the articles were deleted/redirected. In the interim, proposals have been made to delete other articles about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy/general officers of the LDS Church. Some gained consensus for deletion, some did not. But also in the meantime, Vojen presented a concrete argument against deletion of such articles (on Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion/Randy D. Funk) that has resulted in all subsequent nominations failing. My question is this: Would you consider restoring the Mazzagardi, Ridd and Wilson articles if it could be shown that the consensus was for the restorations? I think if proposals were made to restore or recreate them, the result would be much different in light of Vojen's argument. So I was just curious about how you would feel on the issue. Please post any reply to my talk page, as I don't habitually check other user's talk pages for responses. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On Jgstokes' behalf, I've listed a similar case at DRV, here, and mentioned these one as well. Your input would be appreciated. Hope you feel better soon! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC).
Thanks both for pointing me to those two discussions. I'll keep an eye on the DRV and if the consensus is that we should restore Terence M. Vinson's article, I'll do the same with the others. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWBLPBAN

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw your comment at WP:ARCA regarding this motion. I was not aware of this (nor I think are most wikipedia editors). Am I correct in reading this as all BLP/BDP articles/content have DS applied? If so I absolutely agree that moots the two American Politics articles, as well as a great deal of every conflict everywhere. I'm suprised people are raising concerns about Maerican Politics being too broad for DS, when all BLPs already are too. In any case, if you could confirm or correct my understanding, that would be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say you're correct (or, to be more precise, I read WP:NEWBLPBAN that way as well). Which means that all edits about living people are subject to discretionary sanctions (BLPs are subject to DS in their entirety, whereas for pages other than those but containing material about living people, DS only apply to edits concerning living people). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nit police

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit I think you meant to say "disclosed" rather than "undisclosed" in your parenthetical remark.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

D'oh. I think I'm starting to forget how to write... Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ARBIP

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Are you still active in handling issues related with Wikipedia:ARBIP? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally, yes. What can I do for you? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Had some strange inconvenience after filing a SPI about Kautilya3(remember?) and Reddyuday. I had explained to Callanecc. Thing remains that what should be done now? He was notified about sanctions.[1] But he has clearly abused multiple accounts. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have reviewed the situation and, at the moment, I don't think a block is warranted here. To me, this seems more of a misunderstanding than a wilfull violation of the sock puppetry policy. I have asked Kautilya to only use one account, though. For now, let's wait for his response. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, User:Bladesmulti has initiated a SPI investigation against my use of multiple accounts. He should not prejudge the outcome of the investigation by making statments like "he has clearly abused multiple accounts." He needs to wait for the outcome. Secondly, "Kautilya3" is indeed my primary account for India-related contributions. This the only account used in the Praveen Togadia page where a dispute arose with Bladesmulti, a dispute that prompted me to file a request for a 3rd opinion, Dispute Resolution and finally Arbitration. There was no confusion regarding my identity in this issue whatsoever. @Salvio guiliano:, I welcome your involvement in this issue. I will send you by private mail, if it is ok, a copy of the correspondence I had with an arbitration committee member when I opened the new account. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
talk-page stalker. Sincere Q: should this discussion be not part of the SPI page?
Kautilya3 did not mention BLPN where s/he was clearly told s/he was pushing for a trivial allegation on a BLP page before running to 30, DRN and Arbitration, all within a day. S/he explicitly invited same editor for 30 here with whom s/he was closely aligned in another edit war as (Redacted). This is dubious imo. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: You seem to have forgotten that, not too long ago, I was fighting User:Vanamonde93 on the 2002 Gujarat riots page, and seeking your help in fighting him. The point that happened on the Praveen Togadia page is that I was facing a one-on-one edit war with another user, and I was looking for a knowledgeable third opinion to resolve the issue. Vanamonde93, who had already done a revert on that page, needed to be involved in the discussion. So I pinged him. The other user pinged you. So we would have been well-matched if the debate continued that way. If you think my other account had something to do with it, you should note that this other account was also involved in 2002 Gujarat riots page. In any case, I fully agree with you that operating multiple accounts in the same topic area is not desirable. I was going to retire the old account. The only reason I couldn't do it immediately was that the discussion on the ABISY page dragged on for so long. At the moment, Salvio suggested that I should use the new account exclusively, which I am going to do. So, you won't hear from reddyuday again. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Kautilya and I had an unpleasant interaction at the 2002 riots page, where Amritasya was called on by Kautilya; and I was already involved on the Praveen Togadia page, so pinging me was no big deal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bladesmulti: & @AmritasyaPutra: To sum things up, I have had an off-wiki discussion with Kautilya and I am convinced that his violation of the sock puppetry policy was not intentional, but merely an oversight. And since blocks are not meant to be punitive, I don't see a reason to impose one now.

    In addition, Kautilya has agreed to only use this account from now on, abandoning the previous one. He has also explained me why he chose to create a new account and, though I can't repeat what he told me in confidence, I believe that he had good reasons to do what he did. For that, I'm about to delete the SPI and would kindly ask everyone not to repeat the name of his old account on my talk page (I have just removed one mention of it – I apologise for editing another person's comment). In this case, I believe that, particularly because the sock puppetry was unintentional and Kautilya has abandoned his previous account, his privacy should be protected. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_73&oldid=626232006"