User talk:Salvio giuliano/General archive

“

We eat vandalism for breakfast!

”

— Today's Motto of the Day

arb case: on vacation?

Regarding recently opened Arb case in which Im a subject: I'll be out of town on vacation from April 4 to April 10. Access to a computer will be spotty at best. I think you said the timeline for the arb case was to submit evidence by April 6th, approximately. Most of my evidence will be, naturally, in response to other editor's comments. I can submit some evidence before 4 April, but how should I handle the situation where another editor submits evidence on, say April 5th, and I dont see it until I return April 11th? Will the arbitrators start considering the evidence on 6 April? If so, that means there will be some evidence that I have not had a chance to rebut.

Related Question: Will arbitrators ask questions during the arbitration and expect editors (such as me) to reply promptly? Within a day? two days? What is the expectation for turn-around time?

Another question: I expect that several editors will pose questions about my contributions, and they each have a 1,000 word limit. I've drafted evidence in rebuttal (to the important issues that were raised at ANI) but I cannot get it below 1,400 words. May I have an special dispensation to exceed the 1,000 word limit? Or is that a hard-and-fast rule? --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your reply. --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wish to confirm that I've read your message and that I'm not ignoring your query; I should be able to provide you with an answer by noon tomorrow. Sorry if this takes a bit. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, as far as the the evidence length is concerned, since you are the named party, 1400 words does not seem to be unreasonable, so I do not believe your evidence should be shortened.

Regarding the tentative timetable, the deadline for the submission of evidence could be extended a bit, to better accomodate your needs and to allow to reply to the others' comments, but I would say the drafter is more qualified to give you a more definitive answer...

Moreover, the Arbitrators might ask you questions; in that event, take your time to give a calm and well-thought-out answer, but try to respond in a timely manner — just not a rushed one —. Hope I was of help. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

F and A

Hi, could you please review the blurb I wrote on you, and edit if necessary? Tony (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked it and it's perfect (I just removed an "active"). I didn't know so much could be written about me... Thanks! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Congratz on your RfA. It closes in a few hours and your an admin for sure. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 01:40, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support and your contratz! I really appreciate them both! It's been a somewhat stressful week and I'm glad it's now finished... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Beat the 'crat congrats

Congrats on being the newest admin, you'll be a fantastic admin! Now for a crat to bestow you with the tools! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:18pm • 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your very kind words, both here and during my RfA; I've really appreciated them! I look forward to working with you, as soon as I've figured out how to use my new mop... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What will be your first act? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Attending New admin school, to make sure I don't break the wiki... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your successful RfA, Salvio giuliano! Here's the standard clothing for your new role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 12:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 12:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! You handled yourself very well throughout. Feel free to raid my monobook.js, the script for declining incorrect speedies and the one which gives a dropdown menu for blocking are particularly useful. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good luck with your new job. (Honestly, I thought you were an admin until I saw your RFA!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually hadn't run for adminship till now, because I was a bit afraid of hell week... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Belated congrats (not long got in). You stayed very calm and answered well. Good job you weren't nominated a day earlier, though........ Peridon (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It would have been fun to be promoted on April, 1st, though... Too bad I didn't think of it earlier... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats Salvio, you have earned the trust of the community, and that is no small accomplishment, hope you like the new tools belt that came with your crappy t-shirt :)  Rmzadeh  ►  19:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankspam

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to my RfA for taking the time to review my contributions and voice their opinions on me. This has been a somewhat stressful but highly formative experience and I value all the feedback I've received. I'll try to improve as an editor and to use the tools to the best of my abilities. Again, thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Risto Perisic

Thanks for recognising Perisic's notability as the individual in charge (with Savovic) while the Visegrad massacres were committed. I thought the Visegrad massacres link was enough to allow notability to be perceived while I carried on working on the article. Unfortunately the Speedy Delete notification prompted me into posting a rapid Hang On with loads of what I was working on which in a bit less of a rush I should have deleted first. I've now included the reference to Patrick Robinson's comments on Pionirska St and Bikavac in the basic article to consolidate the reference to the massacres and I'll come back and work on the rest later. Opbeith (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD intentions

Before you might bring the CSD you recently reverted, which is only the second I have applied since you repudiated my credibility at RfA, against me in another; Please consider the activity of the deleted articles the user was publishing, and this communication I was involved in with another admin. I do understand the importance of not BITING contributors. But It is intuitive that CSD exist for some reason, and this example fulfills the requirements which necessitate a need for CSD. My76Strat (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an error on my part, actually. I wanted to remove the link, but didn't want to speedy delete the page, as it is a talk page and I didn't think the case was egregious enough to warrant speedy deletion. But, apparently, I chose the wrong revision to revert to... You were right in wanting to remove that link! Sorry for the error. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to imply that you should feel sorrow, only that indeed we all make mistakes. I never really had the chance to discuss the CSD issues at my own RfA for obvious other reasons. But I often did have a rational, many times it was related to some string of creations and deletions which led to a final action which in itself doesn't appear egregious. And then there was a couple examples which were genuine errors. Any way I respect you, and I wasn't trying to create drama at your RfA. I was satisfied that you would rightfully emerge successful, and it wasn't my intention to attempt to derail that success. But that I did have a single issue which prevented me from supporting, and the courage to say it in the presence of a hundred supporters, is my manner. I do know the best politically correct answer would have been to say nothing, but I seldom choose PC in governing my actions. And my offer still stands if you are curious to the exact observation which led to my oppose, I will share it with you. But obviously you are reasonable and I think you would understand, if you don't already have an idea. I will say this, it had nothing to do with our interactions during my RfA. Congratulations on your success, and grow in to the best admin you can be, which is what I believe you intend. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'd be interested to know it... I've been known to make mistakes (as you've just witnessed... ), but I like to think I can use them to try and improve myself. So, yes, I'd like you to please share your concern with me! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly a concern, because I know people make mistakes. And I know that many, if not most are unintentional. I admit to having been emotionally, and physically, shaken by my own experience. Many things confused my normal ability to reason. I wondered if any event(s) in my RfA were staged criteria. Many times I reflected my thoughts on your comment, and my response. At first, what struck me is that you began, and ended your remarks, stating you were sorry. I also remember my response; I stated there was no need to be sorry, your observations were valid. And that I was going to give you an answer when it was prepared as well as you concern was expressed. As other things happened, I looked at my initial response as rather naive. Because it was the only concern I couldn't enunciate with an answer.

I don't know if you saw my attempt with 28bytes, but I hope you will visit it when you have time. Because if I could have been allowed, even though it takes many words to convey the thoughts, to answer; For sure half of your legitimate concerns, had legitimate answers. If ever I could have produced that half of the story, I would have been better able to ask forgiveness for the other half, which were mistakes. In the end it all boiled down to Murphy's law, shitty timing, and a process of RfA which apparently has been in need of mending for some time. You played a small part of the total; It was significant! Per Salvio became the number 1 oppose rational. But I didn't blame you or have ill regards.

If it had been asked; Have you made errors in tagging CSD? My answer would have included some of the examples you showed; And frankly a couple others that you either missed, or decided not to pile on. Anyway, it was no secret I had made some mistakes. I generally improved with each realization, and I felt I could demonstrate enough reason to maintain trust. Obviously not! But that was consensus, not you personally. And I remember your statement: If I returned in some months, having embracing the regards of your counsel, by demonstration, you would support me in any subsequent attempt. I did believe you, and do believe you were sincere.

For the 'way too many reasons' to even try and explain, I decided to begin participating in RfA. I had a lot to learn, and I felt, and still feel, some others could benefit from learning along the way too. I began this participation by entering the RfA for Fae, in a neutral position. Imagine the Irony of finishing my own RfA, which was a disaster I still haven't fully recollected; To enter an RfA which was otherwise perfect. All concise, full of wiki love, and no rambles. When I noticed you were supporting, I concluded if this user had any shortfalls, CSD tags and newcomer bites wouldn't be one of them. If you read my oppose of Fae, the comment "It would seem impossible; For such as I find, to exist" was directed at your attention. For I had perceived an obvious double standard, and then some of the same who vehemently opposed any notion of looking past my errors with CSD, were actively supporting, and defending a candidate, who on paper was far more problematic than me.

I point out they were making these errors in the same day; You couldn't get more recent than that! I have seen Fae during my own efforts at patrol, and I have no qualm against them, I didn't want my scorn, or desire to draw on a point to adversely affect them, but I felt compelled to do as I did; Which was to enunciate the things I had just been tortured into learning. And it was the culmination, of the hypocrisy of that effort, that sent me to the hospital in a state of nervous anxiety, so impacted on my wellness, that I thought I had a mild stroke somewhere along that journey.

I was unable to function at my former level; My concentration was gone; Reality didn't seem real! I knew what I wanted to do, but wasn't connecting the thought to the action off doing. My productivity at work was reduced by almost half. I even left work early the first two days, because I knew I wasn't pulling my share of the load. I hoped that another night of rest would clear matters; But they were not improving. The third morning, within five minutes at work, I knew it was time to see a doctor. The not knowing was becoming harder to handle than accepting an answer that could have been bad. I am glad that it was my mind, and that medication was able to correct the imbalance.

Then your RfA was transcluded. It is clear you are the substance of a good admin. It was also clear that you had tremendous support; Rightfully so! But I stated my thoughts in the oppose section. In another discussion, I explain a little about the context, that I mirrored Fetchcomms support into my oppose, and the oppose at Fae's RfA which was when I first saw that manner used. Now if the example at Fae's would have been as clearly rebuked as mine, I wouldn't have looked at it as an example to emulate. But again, Mr. Murphy was following me, so that whatever could go wrong, would, and furthermore, it would be me who carried the heaver load. So be it, because that must have been my higher purpose.

I am glad to think I may have toted the straw that finely broke the camels very strong back; And believe, to the point of expectation, that RfA will get the makeover it has so long needed. In fact, I hope you will join the task force which is forming to ensure the getting done, gets done. I promise you this, the only problem you might have with me, is that I do prefer to reach for depth in written communication. As this example attests. But I think they are things better said, better known, than internalized. So I speak to the regards of what I think. Especially when it is my thought process, or rational, which is in question. I don't know how to express deep thought with shallow prose. I assure you of one thing for certain; Every long writing I have ever produced, could easily have been longer, if I hadn't restrained many of the things I would like to have said. To the final regards of my writing, I would like to share with you a thread that was posted to my talk page, because quite frankly, it is the nicest literary compliment I have never imagined. And it truly highlights that there are two schools of thought regarding written communication.

To last of all state, if you have read this, and the links shown, you have done more penance than was ever necessary. But if you did it right, which I think you did, you are a little better for having done it. And I am satisfied that I was able to explain some of the multiple facets, that make this more complex than the pithy responses which have been attributed: Arrogance, DRAMA, DIVA, condescending, incomprehensible, incompetent, and the latest has been TROLL, DUCK, and GIANTDUCK. And we say "I don't understand why so many good editors leave the project all together after an RfA". I didn't understand either, but I am capable of learning, and I have felt real repercussions, simply for having volunteered to further assist the project. I am not convinced that there is not some larger consequence looming. The whole cabal thing and talk of SPI, and other things have shaken the foundation of what I believed the institution, Wikipedia, was founded upon.

A large record of one event, is now recorded here. The others who wanted to know what thoughts moved me to oppose your RfA, can observe it here, cause I don't have anything else to add. For the sake of perspective, everything contained in this post, is requisite the comment I posted at first. And we handled that much closer to how I would prefer, which is to see where we can find the common ground. I hope to see you involved in the task force I mentioned, and to working with you in the future. Notwithstanding, that I believe if they get more signed up than they need, I am probably the first one who will be polity told thanks, but no thanks. Thank you for asking that I expand these sentiments, for what I hope will improve the forward conduct for us both, and maybe even someone who reads for curiosity. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read everything you wrote me and I'll try to provide some answers...

Well, first of all, I feel bit guilty for the way you've been treated during your RfA: some people were less than kind to you... That said, I was actually sorry to oppose you; I always hate it when I have to oppose a person who's volunteered to serve the community. In fact, I always try to be as tactful as possible, because I've seen people abused and ill-treated, when they were only trying to be of help.

Regarding your opposition during Fae's RfA, I took a look at it and in the first article you linked to, he had undone the speedy nomination immediately; he removed the speedy deletion from the second article as well and cleaned it up for the user; the third article is a good-faith error (he did not check who was copying from whom). The one really serious error appears to be this, as you correctly pointed out. At the time, I reviewed your oppose — I always read what the opposers are saying, to make sure something concerning hasn't escaped my attention —, but I did not think it would warrant my opposition, because in most cases, Fae immediately undid his actions and one or two mistakes can be forgiven... But, more importantly, because I had actually seen Fae in action many times. I don't know why, perhaps because we are both European and we tend edit at the same time, but I had often seen his edits and always thought he was good... I had never actually seen you around, except for WP:ACC, and, so, I had to go by what I saw, during my review. My main objection to your editing style, however, is not that you make errors or that you're a bit verbose. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has his own peculiar writing style, but rather I opposed because it seemed to me that you tend(ed) to rush things a tad — which is why your reply to 28bytes did not persuade me to change my mind —. Back to Fae's RfA, I didn't reply to your oppose with my opinion for the same reason I didn't post to your talk page asking you to come back, when you retired: honestly, I must admit I felt a bit uneasy, because I knew I had torpedoed your RfA...

As far as the RfA task force is concerned, I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be joining it. I do hope it succeeds in improving the sometimes toxic RfA environment — I really do! —, but I know what it feels like when you get excited about a new proposal and devote some time to it only to see that it goes nowhere. One fiasco is enough for me... I hope my response is thorough; if I've missed something, ask away! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You response exceeds anything I would have anticipated. You could simply have said: "I understand", and frankly, that would have meant a lot. It would also be a robust response, when compared to some, who have replied to similar regards by stating "noted". You have improved my continence and further confirmed that you are going to be one of the better admins. I perceive your actions are well thought, and not hap hazard as I wrongly assumed. I apologize for reducing the level of good faith you were entitled. I fully acknowledge; Your conduct throughout my RfA was exemplary! I never had a justification to be agitated against you. And I know, I did reflect frustration towards you. That was me choosing the bad alternative.

To your regards concerning overoptimism, and policy change, you are entirely correct to remind me that this is a daunting endeavor. I've seen it with BLPPROD, I'm seeing it with PC, and I would be naive not to anticipate it for this endeavor. The only statistic that is favorable, is that there are discussions to improve RfA that go back several years. So maybe we are closer to the end. I will remember not to get to attached. I've only just recently began to resume what I would have called my normal wiki interactions. And that is a good thing to be doing. Debate wears on the things that define our humanity. And we can't squander such a precious commodity. I want to say, "I am impressed that you handled every bumpy aspect of this rite, in the most dignified manner". And given me, another solid example worth emulating. I do wish you well, and you are esteemed in my sight. Bravo to you. My76Strat (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a tip

Maybe that instead of just putting the CSD declined template, you explain more. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, by all means! You tagged for speedy deletion an article about the Romanian Red Cross, that, in my opinion, is not only important, but also quite notable, as it is one of the national Red Cross Societies that are members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement... Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised to see such an article tagged per A7... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

retrieve deleted page

my page was deleted. how can i retrieve it and edit it? thanks and please leave a talkback on my page! Bcf yolanda (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)bcf yolanda

I deleted your page as it didn't indicate how or why Beyond Capital Fund is important or significant. I'm about to undelete the page and userfy it for you, which means that it will be in a subpage — User:Bcf yolanda/Beyond Capital Fund —, where you'll be able to modify it at will, without having to worry about speedy deletions. However, before moving it back to mainspace, you should familiarise yourself with our notability criteria, otherwise you risk to have your article deleted again... If you need further help or clarifications, feel free to ask away! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

move an article from the draft to the main page

I edited it but not sure how to resubmit it. <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Bcf_yolanda/Beyond_Capital_Fund> please help me move it to the mainspace (if you can) and leave a talkback on my page. Thanks! Bcf yolanda (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Bcf yolanda

I'm sorry, but I don't think the article asserts notability yet, so I'd rather not move it, for the moment, as I'm pretty sure it would end up nominated for deletion again. Before moving it, please try to look for reliable, third-party sources to prove this corporation's notability. Alternatively, if you want a second opinion, you can ask for feedback on your article here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam parker - redirect to deleted article

Hi Salvio - Adam parker needs deleting too. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Zapped, thanks! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

stuff...

a) i replied on my talkpage about Miguel Ángel Toma - no problem. b) what do you think about this one? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trist%C3%A1n_Bauer sufficient as well? Soosim (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Cruel Thursday of abundance

Your input is requested at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Cruel_Thursday_of_abundance - you may have a better idea of what do do with this than we do. Not urgent. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Although I admit that, when I saw the section header I scratched my head a bit. Awesome translation. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you addopt me?

As you said in my talk page, I come here to point out that I asked some questions... Maybe with the next tag you are passing through my talk page again! :D Read you soon! Crlsmrgf (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You'have already received fantastic answers on your talk page, but here's my 2p. My personal suggestion would be to read the three core policies regarding content creation: verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. Wikipedia has many (and I mean many) other policies and guidelines, but you'll learn them as you edit and, by the way, we experienced users are supposed to be as helpful and welcoming as we can...

That said, I'd be glad to adopt you, even though I tend to do more maintenance than content creation, so I don't know how much I might be of help, but if you are content with having me as an adopter, I'll be happy to mentor you! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Crlsmrgf, also - personally, I don't do the official "adoption" thing. However, you can always ask me anything on my talk page.  Chzz  ►  20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't, but he was so helpful that I adopted his signature :P  Rmzadeh  ►  04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody ! In fact, I didn't know that the term "adoption" existed. I've understood that when you need to clarify something about wikipedia, it's enough to cry "Help!"... so no more adoption necessity :) Anyway, thanks again and read you soon. Crlsmrgf (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi. Where can i find the policy or guidelines on ArbCom members' recusal from a case? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the only avalaible information regarding ArbCom members' recusal can be found here, but it's rather short, I fear... Related discussions can be found here, here and here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Sorry to tell you this late but congratulations on becoming an admin, man! WayneSlam 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the ALP

This is horrible, I don't understand why our page was deleted! Replacing the ALP. I had to step out for a few hours for a commitment and come back and it's been deleted, even though I added the {hold on} message I read to add to keep the page from being deleted. Replacing the ALP is in Australia. It is a valid company. It is a political organistion and it is very important to us to be recognised on wikipedia. I followed the instructions for adding a page. I'm not sure what more we can do other than post who we are and exactly what I started to post. Did you even view our website, or the post about us on a forum, or our twitter page where we even answered wikipedia @EnWiki, or our facebook page a Political Organisation - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Replacing-the-ALP/199981270025069 We are important because we are starting a movement, much like the American Tea Party movement, but in Australia. We are a new organisation, what other ways can we be validated??? Is there an administrator for Wikipedia in Australia we can actually speak with? Spacetrecker (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Spacetrecker (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are only self-published sources, they are not reliable, third-party ones, as defined by Wikipedia's policies — please note that I'm not saying those sources are unreliable; reliable sources is an expression that has a very spefic meaning in Wikipedia's jargon, as ou can see reading our policy linked above —, I'm sorry.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, meaning that it covers organisations that are already notable; it is not a way to promote an organisation you have just founded, so that it will become notable. I am sorry, but I have to stand by my decision that your organisation does not qualify yet for inclusion; if you wish to receive a second opinion, however, you can list the page here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Spacetrecker (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Actually the link to this website is not a self published source: http://the-riotact.com/replacing-the-alp/42015 . We have no affiliation with "the-riotact.com". We have had several radio interviews, with reference from one on Twitter, also not a self published source: http://twitter.com/#!/2CC . For now though, when you search "Replacing the ALP" in google our page does come up to wikipedia, 2nd in the google search results!! Unfortunately, people who now click on that link receive the message "This page has been deleted" which looks absolutely horrible for our organisation standpoint. We are now understanding how wikipedia works a little better and do not mind waiting until we get more publicity seeing as we have more interviews lined up anyways... but until then is it possible to please not show "this page has been deleted". On our page it also states, "(A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH))" which we feel is misrepresenting our message. To say we do not indicate "importance or significance" is completely subjective, and a non wikipedia person who reads this, someone who's actually interested in who we are might very well take this the wrong way and interpret it as the group itself has no importance or significance. We feel this is very wrongly just. We hope you understand where we are coming from. If anything, you can help us by not including our page at all and we will reinstate it when we have the credibility wikipedia requires. We also didn't have time, per wikipedia's deletion, to add more information about us so when we are reinstated we have much more to add. As we are in Australia is there a wikipedia representative we can actually speak with in our country? Spacetrecker (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Spacetracker, I've tried to answer some of your concerns on your talk page at User talk:Spacetrecker#Re-Creating Replacing the ALP twilsonb (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Re

All right, thanks. I only ask because G10 and G12 are obviously on a different level than other CSD tags. I've lurked some at AfC but I'm not as familiar with it as NPP (although I did start one MfD about two AfC pages). I'll watch and see what they do. I've been thinking about getting more involved in AfC, but NPP is just as backlogged, and the worst attacks tend to come there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! And to silently observe is my favourite way of learning new things...

By the way, seriously, thanks for all the work you do on WP:NPP. I know it's usually underappreciated, but you do a hell of a good job! Keep it up, please! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

speaking of NPP, usually when I remove an inappropriate speedy tag, I add a prod tag when there is nonetheless very good reason for the article to be deleted--I'm thinking of Timecamp. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to let the original tagger PROD the article or send it to AfD, if he wants, since it is not usually something that needs to go asap; and since any editor may nominate for deletion pages that do not qualify for inclusion. Moreover, quite frankly, I don't like PRODs... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hasty Deletion of LoudCloud Systems, Inc.

Hi Salvio giuliano, as far as I can tell, you deleted LoudCloud Systems, Inc. while there was still a {{hangon}} notice on it. Since it's gone, I can't tell who created it, or how long the user had to add their explanation to the talk page. Did they add an explanation? My impression was that they didn't have much time!

I agree it was blatant advertising, and probably copied off their website, but the {{hangon}} could have been an opportunity for an explanation, and the creation of a more appropriate page.

If they didn't have much time (e.g. a few days), can you restore it to give them the opportunity? twilsonb (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the article, as an unsalvageably spammy page, which, short of a rewrite, would have never been acceptable, and because it had been created by Loudcloudsystems (talk · contribs), whom I had just {{softerblock}}ed per WP:ORGNAME, so that they would not have been able to improve the article. That said, the {{hangon}} template explicitly reads Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. The page unquestionably qualified for speedy deletion and I don't believe that the hangon template should be used as a stratagem to circumvent speedy deletion and keep pure spam around. That is why I'm not going to restore the article; but I shan't object if another admin deems that it should be.

That said, I'd like to thank you for your reply to Spacetrecker (talk · contribs). It was very thorough and yes I'd be willing to userfy Replacing the ALP, if they wish to try to work on it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

congrats

I'm glad to see you made it through the RfA and was granted admin status. Congratulations Tommy! 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Could you take a quick look at my contribs. I recently requested speedy deletion on several criterions and are getting antsy for an admin like yourself who has been very busy with deleting pages (this I see from the deletion log) to delete/decline them. Thanks and cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 22:23, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Millers Creek Christian School

Hi Salvio. I was trying to despam the page for Millers Creek Christian School today, having found it in the queue at New Pages and see that you've blocked the account of the creator. Is an indefinite block really necessary? Carrite (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I believe it was. Per WP:ORGNAME, usernames that purport to represent an entire group are not permitted; this, Millers Creek Christian School (talk · contribs) was the case, in my opinion, so I blocked the user. That said, I chose to {{softerblock}} them. This means that they can create a new account, if they so wish. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD

You deleted P:Bolivia and I do understand why but I would want to recreate it but change it to the Portal:Bolivia instead of User:Ebe123/Portal:Bolivia which I requested deletion. Is "P:" like an acceptable abbreviation of "Portal:"? If so, would you accept that I recreate it? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the page as a redirect from the main namespace to your userspace; criterion R2 excludes, among other things, redirects from the main namespace to the Portal: namespace, so, in such a case case, the page would not be speedily deletable. I don't know, though, how many redirects there are from P: to Portal:, but this is just idle curiosity. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

you jerk MC Chris Killer IS MY RAPPER NAME I DONT REALLY KILL PEOPLE IDIOT!