Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IP User 71.116.66.58

[edit]

Hi Salvio, Yesterday I nominated IP User 71.116.66.58 for administrative intervention, because the user kept vandalizing the same page in spite of 4 warnings. I reported this to AIV, but the report seems to have gone nowhere. Actually, it appears that it might have been deleted by you. So I was curious to find out if there was a reason why my request was trashed. I don't enjoy the possibility that I'll be spending my Sunday deleting mischievous posts.  :) Below is the report that went missing from AIV. I am still curious how four warnings in the span of a day does not constitute a sufficient warning. Is six sufficient? Eight? It seems sometimes that Wikipedia's attitude towards vandalism deliberately creates more work for the people who try to suppress it. Thanks for your help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user has received four warnings, escalating in severity from L2 to nomination for Administrative intervention. The user ignores the warnings and continues to submit disruptive information. Warnings are toothless without punitive action. That said, what would you consider to be a sufficient number of warnings to warrant a block? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the report at 11.06 (UTC) this morning because this user hadn't edited since 04.10 (UTC).

Blocks are preventative and not punitive, meaning that they are only imposed to stop ongoing disruption. In this case, the disruption caused by the editor had already stopped (since they hadn't edited in seven hours), so a block would just have been punitive, hence I chose not to action the report. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salvio, good point re blocks being preventative vs punitive. I'll keep that in mind in the future. However, since the AIV was deleted, the user has vandalized the page twice more. I will re-file my report. I'm not sure if a mere 7 hours of inactivity really counts as complying to the request not to vandalize. Even vandals need sleep.  :) My two cents, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the user was blocked and rightly so. The point is that this vandal was using his IP and these addresses are routinely reassigned; so, if they have already disconnected, I might end up blocking an entirely innocent user who just happens to share this guy's IP. Had they been using an account, I'd have certainly blocked... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

[edit]

Hi

Just FYI, if you come across edits like this coming from that IP range, that is a sock of User:Brianwazere. General MO is vandalising EastEnders and Hollyoaks pages and attacking other editors. I've blocked I think 4 socks of his today alone :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I hadn't had the pleasure of meeting this rather pleasant fellow yet... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from User talk:Cymru.lass

[edit]

" Please don't revert talkpage vandalism or personal, unless it targets someone besides me and/or outs me. I can handle nasty comments, and I'm really big on keeping all comments accessible. That said, I might collapse a section with particularly nasty comments, but I won't remove the comments. "

1st point: Please don't revert edits the owner of the page asks you not to revert. 2nd point: I was not making personal attacks, but merely criticizing her attacks on petty pictures which were clearly meant to produce humor and satire, and are therefore protected by the laws of fair use.

I hope this clears things up.

--93.163.53.245 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't recall that part of her talk page... Had I remembered, I wouldn't have reverted. The tone of your edit was inappropriate though. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, salvio! I've been away for a while and not watching my talk page. Thanks for keeping an eye on it! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC) (BTW, love the editnotice!!)[reply]

Hi Salvio!

[edit]

I tried to take one of your Userboxes to use on my User Page. But I cannot see how to modify the 'CET' parameter to reflect AEST (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Can you help me out? --Greenmaven (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem with template {{time}}, which I use in the userbox; it does not recognise AEST, at the moment... Unfortunately, it's too complex a template for me to edit. I'm really sorry! Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

[edit]

RevDel requested in history[1] of Brooke Richards (which I've just redirected), for IP edit at 12:09 today is which plainly defamatory and unsupported by reliable sources. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers! Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WikiPuppies! (bark) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WikiPuppies! (bark) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

Block

[edit]

Will Blocking and Unblocking affect my participation to Wikipedia now or in near future???? Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will contain an entry means??? Just clearing my doubts.... And i have no issues about your mistake, we are born to learn from our mistakes. Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thank you!! Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am now unable to "Undo" edits.... Please help!!! Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin eyes would be appreciated

[edit]

Please find below a copy of a message left on Fut. Perf's talk page. I would be grateful if you have the time to consider the request on Boing's talk page.

A couple of days ago you responded to an ANI thread about Nair & then subsequently did some work cleaning up the situation on the article, its talk page & (I think) the pages of one of the contributors.

The situation on some caste articles with which I am involved is messy and is likely to stay that way for some time. Boing! said Zebedee and SpacemanSpiff have both been performing admin duties at them but I feel that some more eyes would be useful, and BsZ has agreed. It is likely that I will have to instigate an SPI at Yadav if reverts of cited content persist there during the next few hours; an SPI for Nair & Ezhava has just concluded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488 (and was not the first by any means); and there is currently an open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar for Kurmi. Some of these spill over to other articles, obviously, but the articles I list here are the principal ones.

Could you possibly consider BsZ's comment? I shall be contacting Salvio with a similar request. Thanks.

BTW, rollback has been useful already, so thank you for arranging that. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

[edit]

Back in May you declined my Rollback request here is it appropriate to ask for it now ? Mtking (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say it's appropriate since two months have now passed since your request. I'm not going to grant you the flag, however, because, taking a rather cursory look at your edits, I've seen very few vandalism reversions, but I'll not decline your request either or comment on it. I'll let another admin handle it. I'd also like to thank you for coming here to ask, before heading off to WP:PERM. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I have posted the request. Mtking (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Mayr_GmbH

[edit]

Hello, you deleted the Mayr_GmbH site a few minutes ago. I´ve simly a short question. I wanted to create a translation for our german wikipedia site, isn´t it possible?

Or is it only possible when the company is also very important (or better significant) in the USA to?

FYI: We are the Market Leader for Safety Clutches and also for Elevator Brakes with nearly 70.000.000 million € yearly turnover (--> nearly 100.000.000 million dollars). And that in combination with our foundation over 100 years ago is the reason why we were significant for wikipedia in germany.

Thanks in advance. BR Robert Schmid

I deleted the article under speedy deletion criterion A7, as an article which did not express why its subject is significant; I did not deem the age of the corporation to be a sufficient claim of importance, though the turnover might well be. That said, Wikipedia articles are not only about significance (that's only enough to avoid a speedy deletion), but about notability (articles about unnotable subject are deleted after a weeklong discussion called WP:AFD).

I'm willing to restore the article to your userspace, so that you can work on it, to improve it — that's what we called a userspace draft —.

However, I must invite you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest and notability. If you're willing to abide by the former and convinced that your organisation meets Wikipedia's notability requirements — in short, it has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, even if they are not in English —, I'll be happy to restore your article to your userspace, so that you can complete it without fearing that it will be speedily deleted and this will also give you the opportunity to ask for feedback on it at WP:FEEDBACK, before moving the page back to the article mainspace. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all thanks for the fast answer. I will search for some good sources to approve that mayr is significant. Is it ok if i get in touch with you again when i have the sources?

BR

Of course! I'd be glad to help. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid ques

[edit]

I am confused; so asking. Would one place Cjmclark before or after CJMiller, if one were to go alphabetically? You can imagine how uselessly without work I must be to be asking you this :) Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, ahem, you're right... It should have gone before; this was rather embarassing... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California Common Sense

[edit]

Thanks for the message about changing CSD to PROD. I am grateful for the second opinion on what I myself thought was a borderline case. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last warning to Thisthat2011

[edit]

(1)This refers to the warning you have given to Thisthat2011.[2] I have faced similar warnings, and it would be great if you had made it clear that you are an administrator and have to right to block him. (2)Please also see the talk pages of Matthew, Sitush and the talk pages of the articles they have edited, and the comments generated on the Shudra appellation, I share one with you, Could you give me by email some of the sources for this claim that Shivaji/Marathas belonged to the Shudra community and later found social upliftment? This issue is a live one in Pune and violence over interpretation of aspects of Shivaji's past has happened before, in the case of the ransacking of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and ~tension has taken place over the issue of movement of statue of Dadoji Kondev from Lal Mahal, besides other incidents.[3], would you say that AshLin threatened Matthew with violence? Do you assume ThisThat threatened Matthew with legal action, to me it looks like he didn't. (3)On matters as sensitive as Shudra editors should be careful in the choice of sources, it looks like they have opened a can of worms.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a general rule, I don't like to boast about my status as an administrator; and, besides, every editor — even non-admins — can warn another user that their behaviour is violating one of Wikipedia's rules and may lead to sanctions. The point is not who's warning whom, but rather the content of the warning itself. Granted, I have the technical ability to block him, but I wasn't threatening him with it: I was merely stating that he should avoid certain actions, because they might lead to a block; the person who, hypothetically, will issue a block was a bit beyond my point.

I have Sitush's talk page and various other articles' talk pages on my watchlist and I routinely keep an eye on them, ready to act if I see something that violates Wikipedia's rules. I've just read the message you've linked to above (the one on MatthewVanitas's talk page) and agree that it was not a threat of violence; and ThisThat's messagge to Sitush was not a legal threat either. The point, however, is that both statements may have, to varying degrees, a chilling effect. And, since the atmosphere is already poisonous, all involved parties should try to tone down theie replies to each other, rather than trying to exacerbate the situation.

Finally I agree that the classification of a caste as part of the śudra varna may be very sensitive and controversial, due to religious reasons, but that's only one more reason why strict verifiability requirements must be respected. And why all involved editors should try to be as unconfrontational as possible. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said last warning, which sounded pretty businesslike. I think a template should be used for official warnings. To distinguish them form informal warnings. Like the 3R warning has a template.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Templates are useful because they contain every necessary bit of info regarding a particular typical violation (such as edit warring or making personal attacks); for more complex situations, a tailored note is much better. And, besides, there are many people who'd consider a template disrespectful (cfr. WP:DNTTR)... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1)Fair enough. (2)I would like to know, isn't there a guidline for articles about extant communities just as there is for BLP?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None that I know of... There are the usual policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V, though; and, perhaps, WP:BLP might be applied in a very limited way, inasmuch as a community is composed of living people, but this is a) my personal opinion and b) a very long shot. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that your point has sunk in

[edit]

Obviously, I am not going to get involved on the page any further but this makes me think that TT2011 has not fully grasped the point that you were making regarding WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I agree; he appears not to get the fact that, although not a real legal threat, his words could have a chilling effect on other editors; however, I'm not going to do anything more, unless he actually does something disruptive.

That's his opinion, after all, to which he's definitely entitled and I don't really see a point in discussing with someone who, apparently, is not going to listen... So, unless he starts editing disruptively, I think it will be far wiser if I refrain from repeating the very same concepts time and again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is enough tendentious repetition floating about at the moment without you adding any more to it. <g> - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the film Lucky (2011), which opens today in NY and LA

[edit]

Hi,

I'd saved a link to the page and noticed it was deleted. It's opening today at the Village East in NYC and Laemmle's Music Hall in LA. A few additional links:

IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1473397/

Home page http://www.theluckymovie.com/

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/theluckymovie

JoBlo http://www.joblo.com/upcomingmovies/movies.php?id=7437

Coming Soon http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=58794

Yahoo http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810212925/info

Metacritic http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lucky

Rovi Movies http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/lucky-v541445

Hollywood.com http://www.hollywood.com/movie/Lucky/7807729

Apple Trailers http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/lucky/

Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771244409/

Turner Classic Movies http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/775751/Lucky/

Flixter http://www.flixster.com/movie/771244409

Can you undelete this? Thanks! CoveringMedia (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, logged in with an account I've meant to close (CoveringMedia). This is my primary account. John Dhabolt (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?

[edit]

Would it be best to ignore the personal issues raised in this or issue a NPA warning? - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user.. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Ministries International.

[edit]

Hi,

You deleted a page I was working on. In all honesty, I published it far too early so would ask you to give me an opportunity to complete what I started. I will ensure it's finished before I republish.

Thanks.

I've just restored the article and moved to your userspace, where you can work on it without having to fear that your page might be deleted. The draft is now located here.

When you're finished, you can move it to mainspace, however, before doing so, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability requirements — articles about unnotable entities routinely end up deleted —. Before moving the page, you can also ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK! Happy editing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights

[edit]

Hello! Sorry for late reply. I was busy in real life(due to 13 July 2011 Mumbai bombings )I appreciate that you have accepted my request! I am assuring you that I wont abuse the right given to me! Thank you for giving me rollback right!--Suyogtalk to me! 03:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_25&oldid=1143284293"