Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Arctan371

You blocked Arctan371 for 24 hours, following my report at WP:AN3. That period is over and there very first action has been to repeat the edit at Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta which gave rise to the block. - Sitush (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to smooth the waters - they seem to be quite upset that they cannot say what they want about the persecution of their people. see User_talk:Arctan371#Repeat_behaviour and especially the link therein to the feedback system. It is a misunderstanding on their part but - somehow - we've got to find a way to get them to talk. I'd much rather that they don't feel they are a persecuted person on Wikipedia as well as in the real world. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
We ought to get this over with first, I added that guy to the SPI as he was restoring the sock edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that you had added to the SPI. However, even if they are socking there may be room for manoeuvre. The question is whether they are acting in bad faith or just kinda frustrated and lost. If they are a sock then they'd have to go back to using the master account and that would be blocked for a while at least, but I've got a gut feeling that this is someone whose real life situation (or, at least, that of those who are still in his home region) is impacting on how he perceives his treatment here. If I am correct then it could well be fixable. Fixable? Is that a word? I guess it probably is in US English even if not in English English. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Now blocked. Shall we redeem them? I personally believe we have a duty to do so. Yes this guy has an agenda. twenty years ago so did I, however mine was dealt with in bullets and bombs. All this fellow wants is the truth out. We need to help him. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights has done a fair amount of work on the subject of oppression in Burma (is that still its "international" name? I think Myanmar is just what the junta etc call it themselves?) Although censorship will be severe there, my bet is that he has some experience of dealing with people such as Arctan/Hazaraboyz and perhaps in channelling their efforts. Like Arctan, they're probably ex-pats. I'll drop him a line pointing to this thread: he might be able to offer some thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This would be good, I have a little experience in the area myself. The question is , shall we redeem this person? I feel we should, I believe he socked due to what hi people are going through, and then assume he hit the same here. Sal, I request you unblock the master, let the sock know and perhaps we can help this guy out. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It might be better to let them stew for a couple of days but ensure that they have talk page access. We can start a dialogue and in that ask them to provide some sourced content that we will copy over to the article. Assuming we can cross the hurdle of sourcing, they'll maybe a bit of a sense that we are not against them. We can dangle a carrot: do this one thing and there'll be no reason for you to be disruptive in future, and no reason for us not to let them loose. I might be overthinking this, though. I did provide a link to a decent source for them to use (Arctan's page, a Reuters piece) in the hope that they would take advantage of it but, of course, they got blocked before anything came of it. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just reviewed User talk:Hazaraboyz. What a complete mess that is. I notice that there was no CU done in the latest SPI and the the behavioural evidence against Arctan371 pretty much amounts to the fact that he was editing a specific article and inserting similar stuff to previous socks. Given the nature of the subject matter, it wouldn't surprise me that various members of the Hazara community would want to insert similar stuff. I'm going to have to rethink this: just how much AGF and time do I want to spend trying to help out someone who is 50/50 likely to be a serial socker? Even allowing for my gut feeling that, yes, they do feel persecuted and perhaps the situation could have been handled better, sooner. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a really thorny issue; User talk:Hazaraboyz is unreadable right now. As mentioned above, I have some experience dealing with articles on repressed ethnic groups, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the really awful persecution of his people, but Wikipedia isn't therapy for it, and while it seems he might have some useful content to add it's very hard to tell whether that outweighs the associated problems. I might be OK with unblocking if he's on a very short leash, although with the very recent socking I'm not even sure I have confidence in that. If he's got something specific he wants to add, have him post it on his talkpage and we can look at it; that might give us some insight into whether he stands a chance of being a useful contributor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment 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. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

I was pleased to see your name on the list - hope it goes well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! I am not the strongest candidate, mainly because I have some weird ideas and because lately my activity levels have dropped a bit, but... Let's see what happens. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You have weird ideas? How can you possibly believe that after recent events? Good to see you in the mix, and there have been far less active arbs in the past (wasn't Cavalry offline for some time, for example, due to their day job?). - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't really remember, but it certainly possible... Well, Sitush, thanks for the word of encouragement: I guess, this means I'll manage to rack up three supports after all. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
We had some elections over here in the UK recently. One candidate organised a public meeting that was reported in some newspaper or another. Aside from the candidate, there were four people present: one was the reporter and the other three were the candidate's children. To rub salt into the wound, it turns out that the candidate has five children ... - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
+1 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, it seems almost certain that you will now exceed this record. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
More encouragement, with thanks for having asked a courageous question politely ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Il mio supporto ce l'hai avuto però sei sicuro di quello che stai facendo? :p --Vituzzu (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
In effetti, considerando gli ultimi eventi, non troppo, lo ammetto... Alla peggio, mi troverò a dover chiedere asilo politico su it.wiki. Però grazie. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

enyart/rambeck

I'm thinking that a sock block was the wrong approach with these two accounts. They're certainly colleagues; Enyart and Rambeck have been working together on religious issues and on Enyart's radio show, according to easily found information. What we actually have is a serious COI, which we can work with, rather than bad behaviour (socking) on either part. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about the fact they are colleagues; I happened on the SPI page and saw that a CU was calling them likely socks and, so, after a brief check of their contributions, I blocked. I trust your judgement that they are not socks and, so, have no objections to an unblock, if they agree to follow our policies regarding meatpuppetry and COI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC talk page you deleted

Just wanted to bring to your attention that Talk:UFC 155: Dos Santos vs. Velasquez II which you recently deleted has once again been created. I have asked for speedy deletion again on the grounds of CSD:G8 and have filed a RFPP petition asking for creation protection untill at least December 30th. Hasteur (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, you got it before I finished saving here. Good Job! Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It popped up on my watchlist... Speedied and salted for three months. Let's see if the message starts sinking in... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Salvio. FYI, with relation to Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) which you blocked last night, please see this SPI report. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was too slow: two other CUs got there before me and indeffed Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs)... But thanks for letting me know! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Removing the UFC pages.

This is the only way I seem to be able to contact you, I think your hand in defending and deleting the UFC 155 (and onward) pages was unjust and biased against the content. These articles generated revenue from multiple users along with providing accurate documentation of events as they unfolded. Each UFC event is a wiki page in the making, useful even before an event has occurred as a documentary of the events.

I find this a very poor choice in deletions and I for one have canceled all future donations to Wiki because of this.

Nate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.195.174 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 December 2012

As I have already explained in the section titled UFC 155 and 156, it was the community that decided those two articles should be deleted. My actions were simply aimed at protecting and enforcing that consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155 and 156

Why were these two pages deleted? These are events that have been officially announced by the UFC with nearly full fight cards.

Thanks, Clint

Hi Clint, both articles were deleted after a community discussion called WP:AFD. Basically, when a member of the community thinks that an article does not belong on Wikipedia, he can nominate said article for deletion; the issue is then discussed by the community for a week and, when the week is up, an admin gauges consensus and closes the discussion.

In this case, it was a fellow admin, Kww (talk · contribs), who closed both discussions as "delete" referring to WP:NOT as the main reason for his determination. I suggest you read both AFDs, to understand his rationale; they are located here and here.

In my opinion, Kww's closures were reasonable and within the discretion granted to closing admins by policy, but if you disagree with them, the first thing you should do is discuss the issue with him. Best regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You may need to full protect the redirect, since it's already been changed to redirect to UFC 155: Dos Santos vs. Velasquez II. I completely disagree with the AfD close, but constantly recreating the page isn't the right way to go about this. CaSJer (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I have speedily deleted the new article per WP:G4 and fully protected the redirect for three months. Again, thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Salvio, have you looked at those AFD delete discussions? It's basically one admin asking for a delete, near consensus against the delete, and then the Admin just deleting anyway. If you want to claim there was consensus, at least read the discussion please.

Yes, I did read the two AfDs and, in my opinion, the closing admin exercised his discretion in a reasonable way. After all, policy trumps head counts: consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

If you, however, believe Kww's closure was erroneous, the correct approach is to discuss the issue with him (and, in my opinion, right now you're not discussing, but rather throwing accusations around). If his response does not satisfy you, then file a deletion review.

To recreate the deleted article again and again is not the right way to go: it will simply be speedily deleted once again per criterion WP:G4... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at User_talk:Guðsþegn/Academy.
Message added 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Get your thoughts on a Wikipedia Service Academy to coordinate admin prep. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)

You are getting this alert because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination) is now up for deletion.

Per Wikipedia:Canvassing:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).

Thank you. Spoildead (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (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. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Smsarmad

Seems to have decided to follow me around like an unpleasant smell. An obvious diff[1] there is no way in hell he would have got there without checking my contributions. He has also g$'d two redirects I created, one of which he could only have found via my contributions. I have asked him a few times to stop but as he will not would you be so kind as to tell him to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi DS. As usual, I have notified Smsarmad that he has been mentioned here. Before commenting, I'd like to read his reply. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio, not sure what you really want to hear from me but here you go: about the Cardiovascular disease article, DS's reverts of Hazaraboys sock appeared on my watchlist, and I wanted to see if any report was filed against the alleged sock or not. While looking at DS's contributions this article interested me and I read it, and when I googled that journal, Google told me my spell were not correct and I don't remember what tempting thought made me correct the spell there or in other words made me do that sin.
About the redirects probably these ([2], [3]) are the redirects he is talking/annoyed about: While I was reviewing this AfD, the blue link of the title heading (below the closing statement) surprised me (As you may know most of these titles appear in red where the result of the discussion is to delete the article), that how can it be blue when the closing statement suggested its deletion. So I checked it and found it to be recreated as a redirect to this article by the same editor whom I thought would be interested in doing this. And about the second redirect, this helpful tool navigated me to it.
This report/message/complaint and messages at my talk more of suggests that I am considered as an *enemy* by him; I would like that to be clarified. That is all from my side. Have a good day! --SMS Talk 03:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smsarmad. Well, your edits appear to be justified; I am a tad concerned, however, because DS feels you are following him and this is causing him distress and diminishing his enjoyment of editing. Please note that I'm not saying this is what you're doing, neither that this is your purpose: I don't have the slightest doubt you're acting in good faith. But, on the other hand, I don't think DS's feelings should be ignored either. So, would you be willing to try and avoid his edits? Nothing formal, nothing strictly compulsory — and, especially, nothing implying you're guilty of anything. Simply an attempt to avoid his edits... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I will try my best, with some certainty that at least edits of first kind won't happen again. --SMS Talk 20:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Subject to General Sanctions?

Hello Salvio, your expert opinion has been suggested as helping clarify whether General Sanctions are appropriate Talk:Chowdhury_Tanbir_Ahmed_Siddiky#General_sanctions. thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Babel userbox

Hello; I’ve just been acquainting myself a bit with the ArbCom candidates, and I notice you describe your English competence as “advanced”. Judging from the admittedly small sample of your writing on the ACE pages, I think it deserves at least en-4.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Odysseus1479. My babel userboxes are somewhat vestigial now: they were the first thing I added when I created my userpage and I think I haven't touched them since... The reason I chose en-3 instead of en-4 was that I did not want to be too pretentious, especially considering I am the king of typos, sigh. But, as usual, I'm rambling; thanks for the kind word. I'll probably update the ubox when the elections are through. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[4] Pretty sure, can you check please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Elockid is fast! Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I posted on his talk when I saw he was online :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC

Hello, hope your health issues are not serious or will improve. I would just like to say I think your decision to delete the UFC 155 and 156 pages are vandalism. For some reason back in April 2012 a movement began to delete future UFC events and since then I have not been able to find info on future or past events or fighters as easily as before. ...which sucks...its a downer. So if your intentions were to be a vandal then congratulations. Great Job. Aside from that feel better!

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Legalese

You might want to link Vexatious litigation, however good/bad that article may be. I know what it means, along with devices in (English) law such as the moron in a rush and the Carbolic Smokeball Company contract case, but the recipient might well be at sea. "Vicarious pleasure" always amuses me: I'm not sure that it is a legal phrase but the concept of being an outsider (the Vicar) experiencing pleasure from the actions of others ... - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears I was a moron in a rush, in this case... You just reminded me of something which made me giggle quite a lot, when I was a student. Erm... Seriously though, I had assumed that it was a common expression which would be easily understood by all. Well, more déformation professionelle, sigh. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You may be right regarding the universality (? is that a word?) but have you ever heard of the expression Belts and braces? Basically, a cautious man wears both a belt and a pair of braces to hold his trousers up: either would do the job, but using both makes sure of it. I wear neither! I feel reasonably confident that your giggling related to vicarious rather than vexatious but I guess it takes all sorts. <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You ask me if "universality" is a word? But I am the foreigner, here... Eh... And, by the way, I do wear a belt, but it's only because I've been losing weight lately and, without it, too many people would see my underwear (and I'm quite shy that way...). And my tittering was caused by the moron: the first time I read about it, I thought the book authors were pranksters... Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you are referring to the usage of "moron in a rush" (or "hurry", or whatever) in law. The authors were not pranksters, but those who step over the legal line are at least that and, usually, something rather more consequential. Anyone fancy a Bepsi or a Boca-Bola? Perhaps a Bars Bar? In a sense, the concept has been negated in real life by the market power of Aldi, who sell many products that closely resemble big-name brands but are not. I guess that the difference is a presumed acknowledgement by shoppers at Aldi of what it is they are letting themselves in for. And, actually, a lot of it is not bad at all. Especially for those drastically lacking in funds such as me. BTW, Salvio, your command of English, and in particular colloquialisms, has always astounded me. It has also shamed me: would that I could reciprocate in your native language, which is all Greek to me (if you permit me repeating an old joke). - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't have Aldi in Italy, but there are similar chain stores. I don't particularly like them, because, especially when it comes to food, I prefer big-name brands, because I delude myself those products undergo more controls and are safer. She who must likes them, on the other hand and sometimes drags me there...

Regarding my English, many thanks! There were a few bumps in the road, though... First time in London, I was a very young and innocent kid. My parents and I were in a restaurant; the waiter approached and I, eager to show off my English skills, proudly asked for a "bloody steak". Impassive, the guy queried if I wanted "fucking chips with it". Back then, I did not understand what had just happened... (Explanation: in Italy, when you want your steak rare, you ask for a "bistecca al sangue", which translated literally becomes, you guessed it, a "bloody steak"). Good times... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have little choice but to shop cheaply.

Yes, you copped the British sense of irony and/or the British casual xenophobia there, I think. Both are alive and well, although only one of them is something to be proud of. Sangue is one of those words that really demonstrates the common linguistic roots: for example, the French sang-froid and the medical exsanguinate. That bloody word is everywhere ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, sanguine, a fully naturalized, if somewhat old-fashioned, description of character or manner. With choleric, phlegmatic, & melancholy, it comes from a pre-scientific, quasi-alchemical theory that attributed psychological qualities to the four humours—blood, bile, mucus, & “black bile”, respectively—in correspondence with the four elements. There’s also a set of terms for the supposed traits of the planets: saturnine, jovial, martial, sunny, venereal, mercurial, & lunatic.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, sangue is a term we exported the last time we were a strong people (in ancient Roman times, sigh)... It comes from sanguis, sanguinis. I love etymology; sometimes, I (re)discover the most curious things... Did you know, for instance, that the term "emancipation" comes from the practice of selling a son three times? I looked for emancipatio on-wiki, but we don't have an article on that... Well, this will have to do... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Me, too. A little bit of etymological curiosity can go a long way with some crosswords. I wasn't aware of the emancipation issue, although it is obviously a Latin root. I might take a closer look at that as and when the likely ArbCom farrago is out of the way. Maybe, just maybe, there is scope for something that is more than a WP:DICDEF. It is a little bit apocryphal (to me, at least) but I've know four people who were called "Doctor" and yet had no academic qualification to justify that usage. The basis is apparently that the seventh son of a seventh son in Ireland traditionally bears that name. But I guess that they could all just have been fans, as per Dr Blofeld! - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for just editing my opening comment in this thread. I've just noticed that we have an article for the Carbolic Smokeball case. It deserves a link. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No academic qualification to justify that usage? I studied 6 long and hard years in Evil Medicine School to obtain that title!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

COI Tag Roberto Treviño Article

Salvio,

I'm writing to ask why you put up a 2nd COI tag on an article I posted? I am new to wikipedia so I am learning the proper procedure. You put up a COI tag at first and requested that I open a new account with my personal name, which I did, but then you put it up again. I initially had opened an account under the name cookshop because I was under the impression that I could not put up something about someone without their permission. I had been thinking of joining wikipedia for a while with the purpose of adding information about places and people I admire in Puerto Rico, where I'm from. I saw Chef Treviño give a food demonstration and I thought he was very good and accomplished plus I saw he did not have a wikipedia page, so after the demo I came up to meet him and asked if I could write a wikipedia article about him as my first article. Since I thought I need to ask permission I did, and he gave me permission to use his company name if necessary, so I created an account with his company name. I apologize if this was an error, like I said I am new to wikipedia and am learning.

The whole purpose of me joining wikipedia is for me to be able to put up unbiased information of people I see and meet in Puerto Rico that are not currently in wikipedia and that I think are accomplished enough to be included. I am doing this to make more information about the current state of Puerto Rico available to people outside of Puerto Rico, as typically there is not much information online about most things and people on the island. I was under the impression that this goal was in line with the stated goals of wikipedia. Is this not correct?

Thank you for your time.

Juan C. Rodriguez

Hi Juan and welcome to Wikipedia! I place the COI tag on Roberto Treviño, because your previous username gave me the impression you were an employee of CookShop, the production company he launched. For that reason, I assumed you had a conflict of interest. Since it appears I was mistaken, please do feel free to revert my edit. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA sanctions

I was going to ask you if this was to be logged in Wikipedia:General sanctions, but I see you're working on it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the bureaucracy is a bit tedious, but I'm taking care of it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I was checking also as a test, to see if I could find it in the first place--I only edited that log (well, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for an interaction ban) for the first time a few days ago. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe I should be done, now... I have added an entry to WP:GS, created the log and the various templates... If I have missed something (I have recently discovered I frequently do that, eh...), please let me know. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. MBisanz talk 18:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_57&oldid=1148817956"