User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 3

Trying to pick your brain

I think that this username violates WP:U, in that it appears to be an account created exclusively to promote Carlos's website. Furthermore, the user has only been editing his userpage and uploading three paintings of his.
The point is that it's not a blatant violation. It looks more like self-promotion, even though he has not edited any articles. So, where do you think I should report him (if a report is even warranted)?
Thanks and sorry for bothering you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional part of the username policy only applies to usernames which "promote a group, company, product or website" - given names are explicitly not included. The reason for this is that WP:ORGNAME is based upon the principle that sharing accounts is forbidden. User accounts which seem to represent a group are therefor blocked indefinitely because they give the impression of account sharing and group based promotion. Using a real name is less of a clear case, though recurrent self promotional is still disruptive and blockable under the normal blocking policy - but not under the username policy which just deals with offensive usernames.

That being said: The userpage in question (User:Carlos E Jimenez) was clearly not compliant with WP:UPNOT. The page was promotional, and did not indicate in any way that it was being written to become a new quality article (It was 3 years old after all), so i removed it as advertising. I left the account Carlos E Jimenez alone for now because it has not edited in three years and can therefor be considered stale. Equally the removal should stop the IP editors involved from creating a new page or continuing their promotional activities. With some luck that should all be that is required to solve the issue. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Kaiocracy

Hello Salvio giuliano. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Kaiocracy to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - in view of his remarks on the talk page, we have to WP:AGF and assume that it is not intended to deceive, which is the test of a hoax. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem there! ^_______^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Salvio, could it be you are still under the same false impression? I shall explain once more.

The article was created as "Faust Vrančić"
It was moved to "Fausto Veranzio" (note: this is a controversial move), without a proper move proposal. It was moved supposedly "per WP:COMMONNAME".
WP:COMMONNAME, on the other hand, quite obviously supports the name "Faust Vrančić" as even a cursory Google search can show.
I noticed the faulty move via a link in the edit-summary of Jakov Mikalja
I reverted that move and restored the article's title. The move I reverted was 1) controversial 2) moved without a move proposal, 3) moved under false argumentation (WP:COMMONNAME).

Now if the article is to be moved to "Fausto Veranzio" that controversial move can be done via proper means, i.e. an official move proposal. (However, WP:COMMONNAME quite clearly states that we are not to move it per notability guidelines, etc...) One thing is for certain: that move was inappropriate and had to be reverted. It was based solely on false argumentation, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME, and was done without a move proposal regardless of its controversial nature. Can you explain your position to me in light of the above? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is: there is an ongoing dispute about whether the names of notable Ragusan should be in Croatian or in Italian/Romance/whatever; you're perfectly aware of that; therefore, you ought to have discussed the change first, before making it. Yet, you did no such thing.

I've already told many people, many times that, since all Balkans-related articles are definitely quite controversial, in order to avoid starting incessant edit war after incessant edit war, all involved editors should, a fortiori ratione, try to stick to policies as hard as they can, discussing first and getting consensus. Every time one doesn't, we are all back to squabbling — just as it is going on now —. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that if you oppose improper, undiscussed moves, that bypass WP:RM in the Balkans (which, btw, I do too) - then you should be supporting, not actively opposing, my revert of such a move. (Indeed if you oppose them so you certainly cannot be of the opinion that improper moves can only be reverted via WP:RM, as you seem to think I should've done.) I'm still struggling to understand your position... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now try to see thing through my eyes for a moment; in March 2010, there was a discussion on the talk page about what name to use for Veranzio and it was chosen to use the romance one. The page was, consistently, moved.

A few days ago, on another article, you were replacing over and over again the name Veranzio with its Croatian counterpart/transliteration in a wikilink. I pointed out that it was a redirect to Veranzio and changed the wikilink back.

A few minutes later — and more than a month after Veranzio's page move —, you moved Veranzio's page back to its Croatian name and changed the wikilink on the other page.

Now, really, how would it look to you, if I had done the same thing, only the other way around?

Even if you think the original move was wrong, you should not have reverted it yourself. It was not vandalism – because there was no intention on anybody's part to make Wikipedia worse, which is what vandalism is all about, it was just a content dispute –, so your action was, at least from my standpoint!, not in keeping with WP policies and started the usual discussion/drama, with people throwing policies at each other. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I reverted "Veranzio" to "Vrančić" on Jakov Mikalja, I did this out of course and had no idea the article had been moved. Once I saw what had transpired, I read the move discussion and saw that the article was moved in March 2010 due to the fact that the COMMON NAME was (mistakenly) thought to be "Veranzio". I ran another series of Google tests and found that this was, in fact, not the case. I found therefore, that the move was not only

1) quite obviously controversial and performed without a WP:RM (which alone means it should be reverted per WP:MOVE), but also
2) performed under incorrect argumentation, i.e. the main stated reason for the move was quite obviously wrong.

Such a move not only could've been reverted, it had to've been reverted. In your own words: since all Balkans-related articles are definitely quite controversial, in order to avoid starting incessant edit war after incessant edit war, all involved editors should, a fortiori ratione, try to stick to policies as hard as they can. WP:MOVE: "especially if you believe the move might be controversial, list pages that you want to have renamed/moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves".

I see what you're trying to say, but given the admittedly controversial nature of this (Balkans) article, and taking into consideration your position, I still cannot understand your opposition to the reversion of a controversial move performed without a WP:RM, and under incorrect argumentation? It seems rather illogical and self-contradictory, if you'll permit me to say so... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again...

Hi again, Excirial.
I see you speedied Cristal Nicole Valadez; could you please tell User:Starbox that he needs to notify the creator of an article, when he tags it for speedy deletion? Three other editors and I tried to tell him, but he didn't listen — and I had to notify User:プリンセス and User:MLGMajorLeagueGaming.
Thanks and sorry again for bothering you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hem, i am occasionally guilty of the same offense to be honest, so i don't think that i am the best person to relay this particular message. What you could do is advice the user to use twinkle while patrolling. Tagging with Twinkle will automatically warn the user in question, so it might be a solution for this user if his reason would be the time requirement (Twinkle is actually faster then manual tagging as well). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Salvio. The discussion part of the Vic Schoen page is just an emotional rant. . . I feel that this is desconstructive to the article regarding Vic Schoen. The rant may or may not be true, but this is not appropriate to be adding to the discussion forum of a wikipedia page. Can you please remove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kak500 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there! It was not vandalism!

You blanked the page, without providing an edit summary, so I wrongly assumed you were vandalising, I'm sorry! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

The material I removed in Human Evolution was clearly vandalism, and I did not add anything else. I do not understand why I received this warning. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is most definitely vandalism. If you didn't mean to vandalize — and that was just an innocent error —, then, no problem, keep editing and forget all about me. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why that showed up under my edit. I did not add that vandalism, I removed it. I did not add anything to that page. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. Assuming good faith, I'm about to remove the warning fromyour talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Protection

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage Piratejosh85 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digito

I understand the neutral thing that you are talking and while writing the article it was a neutral point of view.If a product is being promoted for the user benefit which does not give any advantage to the developer then what is the problem.If by searching on wikipedia people can download it what is the problem.Then you should delete pages on ffmpeg,linux.This are all promting their product i guess.Wikipedia s for users not for people who feel great in deleting articles you should also understand this point of veiw May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikki agarwal (talk • contribs)

Aside from notability issues, the article did not look neutral to me; in some points, it almost read like a guide. If this software really is notable and you think that it is worth inclusion, you should try to write an article, asking for help here. (My two cents are that you should try to write an article which is much much shorter, wikified, without mention of pros and cons — the way they were explained — and that contains no direct link to download the program). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

look i tried linking it to my page which you have a problem with.Wikipedia is a guide to my problem it is not a google page where you get links of other pages.you should understand that it was explaining feature of the software not telling people how to use it(i.e the meaning of the guide).Wikipedia does not say anything about keeping the article short,it maintains that it has to be original and that article was 100% original with no their references.Abuse of power is always a problem --Rikki agarwal (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to be short, you are right, but, at the same time, it should not be too fastidious, that it reads like a guide, as I told you.

Articles can deal with products or companies, but, in those cases, the editors must be extracareful, to avoid promoting the entity they're writing about. And I don't think this was case of abuse of power: three editors tagged your article for deletion and three admins deleted it. Quite frankly, I, as an uninvolved editor, entirely concur with their call.

To get it kept, since the page was wp:salt, my suggestion is that you could write it in your user space here, for instance, and when it's done, and it in keeping with Wikipolicy, ask the admin who salted the page if you can put the article back. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for the revert! :) Tommy2010 00:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just returning the favour. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Vorderman (edit)

This is a true fact of her bloodline being welsh and i have looked into our family tree and seen. I share a computer and did not write about Macbeth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.27.124 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had inserted a meaningless word in the article; usually, that is closely related to vandal edits.

I'm sorry if I was wrong; if you have a reliable source, then, by all means, feel free to add that piece of info in the article! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Titmuss

This one's not vandalism :( I need to add the links and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.125.17 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That violates WP:BLP, unless you can provide a WP:RS backing up your claim. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Roots

Go to WP:Sockpuppet investigations and open a report under Dr Roots and request a CheckUser as I have sleepers which a duck test will never find and I'm not afraid to use them. Sincerly, Roots Jnr. (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-D

The deleting admin will certainly take care of that. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to take care of it. If you do it then I will use a sleeper to nominate you for adminship. Roots Jnr. (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just returning the favour. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's Razor Article

Hey, I just edited the article Occam's Razor in an attempt to reduce the "fat" of the article. I'm not sure why my edit was reverted, as I added sources to an unsources section. Is there any reason it was reverted? EDIT: I posted it as an anon, maybe that's why (I understand that anons aren't well-liked here, no worries). AtomicEddy (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed a big chunk of text and reverted because that's usually done by a vandal; looking closer I see I was wrong. I'm sorry! Please, feel free to revert me! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's no problem, I added it again (not through a revert because i did some grammar changes, but it's cool) It happens all the time (I prefer editing with my IP). AtomicEddy (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with that; it's just that I sometimes have knee-jerk reactions. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your suggestion that I use Lupin's Anti-vandal Tool! I just installed Twinkle, but it doesn't seem to like Chrome very much (or maybe it's just my computer, which has a temper), so I think I'll give Lupin a spin! cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle in addition to Lupin, because it allowed for personalized edit summaries when reverting — and because it is great to tag pages and report users to wp:aiv —, but I use Mozilla... Have you tried to explain it here? (I'm not really very good with computers...) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you added Twinkle to vector and not to monobook, could it not be the reason it malfunctioned? It's a wild guess, but it might just work... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sanderson & Sons

Arthur Sanderson & Sons was deleted following your nomination, but I have reposted it with the same reference as before. Whether you personally have immediate access to that reference is really not of any importance.

If you truly believe that this company is too insignificant to be covered in Wikipedia, I suggest that you take it to WP:AFD. In the meanwhile I am not going to do any further work on the subject. --Hegvald (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to do that: I'm not on some sort of a crusade to get it deleted; I thought — and still think — it does not qualify for inclusion, but I'm certain that, if it really doesn't, someone else will take care of that.

Hope, any way, there are no hard feelings! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Pearce

I removed a section because it was not encyclopedia but simply campaign talking points. I explained by reasons in the removal. Rather than revert my edit without comment on your part, I would appreciate if you would simply clean up the section in question, format it properly and resubmit it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.246.153 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit, in which you did not explain the removal of text, so I assumed it was vandalism.

Now I'm off to bed, tomorrow I'll take a look at the page! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought my explanation for removal was not only there, but clear. Here it is again:

"(Reads like a campaign ad not an encyclopedia. Should be formatted & resubmitted according to Wiki rules for bios of living people.)"

Remember, we shouldn't always instantly assume vandalism. I'd appreciate if you'd like to help properly format his campaign bulletpoints. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.246.153 (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had I seen your explanation, I would not have reverted your edit, clearly. The point is that I did not. I do not know if you're familiar with the tool, but however, it shows me the diff, the edit summary and a series of symbols, that indicate if the edit tripped an edit filter or if the editor has already been warned and so on. I do not see the edit history.

In this case, I saw someone (who had already been warned - although I did not know exactly why) undoing a patroller's edit, done with Huggle, removing text and not explaining why. I was wrong, you were trying to make the article better. However, I'd like you to understand why I did what I did... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid little brother

Hey. I am really sorry for that vandalism. I created an account for no more than five minutes, I get up to go to the bathroom, and I see I already have a final notice warning when I came back. It turns out my immature 13 year old brother used my new account to vandalize those pages. I am truly sorry for what he did. Is there a way we can fix the warnings on my page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokeythellama7 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the warnings from your talk page; a track of them will remain in the page's edit history, however. Anyway, that's no big deal: if you no longer vandalize (and keep your brother away from your computer, when you're logged in) you most definitely will not be blocked.

Please note, though, that I'm willingly assuming good faith on your part, although we have a page about little brothers. ;)

All in all, no harm was done; accept my welcome to wikipedia. And please feel free to drop me a line, should you need help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll make sure he doesn't do it again. And thanks for the welcome greeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokeythellama7 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm sorry.

I reverted a perfectly legit edit of yours, it was a glitch of Huggle, as I meant to revert an edit on the page I was viewing before it. As I've said, I'm sorry! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, why don't you just revert it back? (SEC (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I did it immediately after writing on your talk page. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're just stepping all over each other! Sorry and thanks! (SEC (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ave Salvius Julianus

...morituri (cause of wikistress) te salutant! =)

I've never met you around for some weeks on the pages I was usually editing (now unfortunately not a large number) so I was wondering what was busy with Salvio Giuliano "l'Equo". See you around! - Theirrulez (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehilà Theirrulez! Nice to see you. Tutto bene?

Lately, I've been busy fighting vandalism and patrolling new pages - and keeping an eye on you... ;-P -; unfortunately, I know too little about history, although it's one of my favourite topics, so it's highly likely we are not going to meet each other on articles... ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah.. I ever suspected you should be better as editor than wikipatroller.. Some Italians would say: machittelofafà! ahaha.. - Theirrulez (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thanks to WP:HUGGLE it's fun to patrol recent changes... I don't know why we don't use it on it.wiki...

And, sometimes, vandalism is extremely funny. Comunque, sai cos'è che me lo fa fare? La mia pigrizia... ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey lazy man, put aside your "pigrizia" and give me an hand on copy-editing some passages in the article about Fausto Veranzio! There are some sections not in a very good writing style. :::: What do you tink about? Let me know! cheers, Theirrulez (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I come. Did you have a particular section in mind? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ucucha said the Machine Novae required a grammatical revision, but right now there's not much sense. Theirrulez (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me in copy-editing my last edit in the ANI? thanks if you can!!--Theirrulez (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with pleasure (I just don't understand what you meant by just to reform a bunch of fire, so I left it). ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose u could be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_review_of_my_actions and in Talk:Faust_Vrančić because an user you awarded with a barnstar seems be accused about the same actions for which you awarded him. A little controversial, isn't it? Cheers --Theirrulez (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theirrulez, this is WP:CANVASSING. Your fifth WP:CANVASSING (yes, I keep count). Make sure you e-mail all the rest of your buddies as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, It's a pleasure to know you are always following my contributions history. This is not canvassing. This is a friendly notice. Canvassing is what you did (links showed it clearly) in the RM for Fausto Veranzio with your votestacker friends. Theirrulez (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not WP:CANVASSING. It's just a friendly notice — for which I sincerely thank him —. I'm a little involved in the matter and it is good that I know there's a discussion about it, so that I can express my opinion, if I wish to do so.

Could you please stop throwing policies at each other? This borders on WP:HARASSMENT, if you ask me — and I know you haven't :-p —: if a behaviour of one of you breaks a rule, there'll surely be someone else ready who'll report it or who'll warn the editor in question. Keeping at it, in my opinion, is definitely not constructive. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]