Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Topic block

Hi! You have topic banned me from editing anything related to Goldblum. Like I have said many times before, I am not interested in this subject at all. What alarmed me was the fact that he has written the entire article about himself and has successfully fought to get anyone who challenges what he has written to get blocked. Unfortunately, it seems like writing autobiographies and having multiple accounts are OK in and of themselves. Even though I'm not interested in editing about this subject at all, I don't want to have any sort of ban. If the ban stays, it will look like I stopped editing about the guy because I'm blocked, not because of my lack of interest. This bothers me. Can you tell me about how I can get the block removed? What's the proper way to do it? Thanks. Nataev (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for not assuming good faith. This request is in good faith. Nataev (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. 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) 19:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Request to have a topic ban lifted

Hello! I have placed a request here to appeal the topic ban you have imposed against me. Please respond. I politely ask you to help me go through this process. This is the first time I've been involved in such issues. Thank you. Nataev (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Modi

Since you seem to be around and have seen the prior instance of refactoring, could you perhaps have a word with Mrt about talk page conventions? He has again inserted a comment in a thread above a reply already posted by me. Timestamped 06:19, 18 May, the insertion makes things difficult to follow. I moved it because I cannot easily ask him to do so as I am banned from his talk page. He is not happy. Alternatively, trout me. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, there is no requirement that talk page discussions are chronologically ordered, provided that, through indentation, it's clear who a person is replying to. In this case, it's clear that you're replying to the good doctor and so is Mr T, so I'd probably just forget about it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
If someone returns to a thread having already posted there, they have to re-read the damn thing to check that someone has not inserted something since their original response. It seems odd to me. Mind you, the system used at ArbCom seems still more odd! - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Oopsie, I hadn't thought of that; now that you mention that, your refactoring of his comment seems reasonable... I'll ping Mr T, to let him know of this discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The signature includes "time and date" for a reason. I wasn't replying to Sitush to begin with. If there is a policy then tell me and I don't wish to create clutter but I feel slighted when someone like Sitush (who I obviously don't hold in high regards) moves my comment with petulant reasons and without my consent. I have started a thread here he and others can comment there. He could have done the same and asked me there. But he chose to mock me. This is needless. I am not watching this page. I will not like to be a party to this conversation. If You want to say something to me, kindly say it on my talk or at the thread at Narendra Modi talk. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
... but you have to read through the thread to see the time/date, or use the history. It is unnecessary and inconvenient. Mrt, I hold you in the same regard that I hold all other contributors here and I am sorry that it is not reciprocated. I just think that right now you need to calm down a bit: you are getting carried away and it is showing with the shouting, swearing etc. At least one person has said the same on your talk page where, of course, I am persona non grata. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Pretty sure this is him on his mobile based on what he was written here. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely him. Please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to Create an ATmega168 Basic Stamp

Hi, now imported to Wikibooks so it can be deleted here - thanks QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at PinkAmpersand's talk page.

Check

Abraham6013 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ardentdefender (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Deonis_2012 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser says no... Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Фаиз Махмудов‎

Hi Sal, I noticed you seem to have been a one man band in dealing with this guy, can you take a look at this SPI please. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bonjourno

Tenner I spelt that wrong. I require your help. One of your own is currently blocked for socking He figures he needs to talk to one of my betters, and that strangely enough made me think of you, well that and the fact you may get through to him, see here for further details. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Buongiorno, Salvio & Darkness. What say a new article beginning

The Bonjourno are a French caste whose traditional occupation is the writing of top-quality newspaper articles ...

;) - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A caste? Was it not supposed to be a super secret cabal? Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Deonis

Can you semi the page? Battle of al-Qusayr (2013) Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The page has only been edited by Deonis twice and there have been edits by "clean" IP editors; for the moment, protection is unwarranted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIODEL

Hi, I did not know about BIODEL until you mentioned it just above. Now that Afd is 7 days old and can be closed. If you can close it (and I think you have been uninvolved in that) then it will end the drama, because Ms Olsson is unhappy about her page and has already requested deletion. So that will just end the saga in peace. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
So you were already biased against the AfD in the first place and closed it a certain way at the request of someone involved in the discussion. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't take this to WP:DRV right this second. SilverserenC 01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Because maybe you have better things to do in life than to dig up a dead page? There were more delete votes than keep, she is not a public figure, and has requested deletion. And one other user Grabergs also supported BIODEL. And Stalwarts111 was along the same lines. It is a dead issue. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
And there would be less of an issue if a neutral admin had actually closed the AfD. Heck, I was coming here just to add for it to be userfied, but instead found you had asked him to close it in a certain way. SilverserenC 21:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Since apparently you've already made up your mind and are not here to discuss, but rather to accuse me, I'll ignore your query. Should you decide you want to actually start discussing, then you'll be welcome back. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a bit of an issue with someone going to an admin and asking them to close an AfD in a certain way. SilverserenC 21:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do you think that by mentioning WP:BIODEL History2007 has in any way influenced my close? Quite frankly, I believe that most, if not all, admins would have closed the AfD the way I did: there was no consensus to keep the bio, the article's subject did not want the page and was a relatively unknown person. It was the quintessential case the policy covers... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not know how a neutral admin would have closed it, especially in the case of Ms. Olsson, especially since she was against past attempts to delete the article and very much wanted to have one. Her recent perplexing shift of opinion seems to be because her opinion on certain subjects has changed slightly since she gave a statement to one of the news articles and now wants to hide the fact that she ever made the statement. Past attempts that have successfully invoked BIODEL have largely involved a true indication of harm in some fashion because of the existence of the article. In this case, the "harm" is that she wants to take back something she said to a newspaper, which has little to do with us and seems like a silly reason, especially since it is easy to figure out a middle path on how to reword the particular section she has an issue with to be more satisfactory to her current beliefs. SilverserenC 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
To put it in the perspective of a religious metaphor, it would be like someone switching from Protestant to Methodist and then trying to erase the fact that they were ever Protestant. That certainly doesn't seem like a proper reason for BIODEL to apply. SilverserenC 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, WP:BIODEL is a sort of balancing test. When a biography causes distress to its subject and that person asks us to delete the page, this individual's interest to have the article zapped usually prevails, unless the person is so notable that the interest of the encyclopaedia outweighs it – because to accede to the request, in such a case, would be a great impediment to our goal of becoming the sum of human knowledge, which means that, for instance, Barack Obama's bio would never be deleted. And it's not our place to decide when a person can feel distressed by his bio; we just have to take notice of that fact and decide whether the notability of the individual in question is so high that it allows us to ignore the request. We are not in possession of all facts, after all, and, so, we cannot really determine if a person's feelings are reasonable.

To continue with the religious metaphors, if an article about a person who was a Jehova's witness and then converted to another religion concentrated heavily on this fact, it could cause serious problems to the subject.

In this case, we had an article about a not-so-famous scholar which, instead of focusing on this person's academic accomplishments and describing her contribution to the topic of history of religion, concentrated heavily on the occasion when she claimed she descended from Jesus and caused a bit of a ruckus in India – I can see how this made her feel uncomfortable and might even have a negative impact on her career. But, as I said, in my opinion, it's not for us to determine if a person's distress is valid... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

BIODEL is often based on whether the reason for the distress is valid or not. There are a number of cases where that was examined and also a number where the reasons were found to not be valid and were thus ignored (such as birth names or birthdates). In this case, Olsson has no problem with the article as it is written or the focus of its content. She has a problem with a single quote in the article about her beliefs on other burial sites, as her opinion on that specific subject has changed from when she made the statement to the newspaper. So, yes, it is completely up to us to determine whether the person's distress is valid, we've done it before. SilverserenC 04:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
So, yes, it is completely up to us to determine whether the person's distress is valid that is not explicitly stated in the policy, which means that, at the very least, both interpretation of WP:BIODEL are reasonable and we'll just have to agree to disagree (though I have to add that I believe that my interpretation is more in keeping with the spirit of WP:BLP). Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Fine, please provide me with a userified copy at User:Silver seren/Suzanne_M._Olsson. SilverserenC 04:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the purpose here to userify this page again? Isn't this directly against the AfD's decision to delete it, which is in accordance with the subject's wishes as well? The only purpose here is if we're not going to delete under WP:BIODEL which means it should just be restored in the article space and the AfD changed to Keep. I don't see a purpose in this move? — raekyt 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, the page is noindexed, which means that it should not be picked up by Google and this should reduce the possible distress to Ms. Olsson, while allowing Silver seren to improve the article, with the hope of achieving a result that will satisfy everyone. That said, this restoration is only temporary: if the page is not edited or there is no consensus at DRV to move it back to mainspace after a reasonable period of time, I'll delete it again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection 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) 19:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

On Ad hominem

Hi Salvio, I noticed somewhere today where you used the phrase "Ad hominem" in relation to another editor. So, it got me to thinking.

Last year you made some comments about myself on Jimmy Wales' talk page, which would also fit into the "ad hominem" category. You were asked to explain your answer not once, but twice. The last time is found at User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_59#On_being_involved.... As one can see, you answered a heap of other questions, but again ignored the request to explain your comments:

"Now, probably I am too old to understand how such an image can be deemed educational, but I was rather surprised when the deletion debate was closed as keep – by an editor who, by the way, could also be reasonably considered involved".

It is especially important that you answer this because you didn't make an effort to approach myself on Commons, nor did you raise the question to the community-at-large. Instead, you choose to make the comment on a thread in an echo chamber which was basically bashing myself, and you knew I had no way of responding to because I was blocked at the time. So one could rightfully say that you "used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others."

Can you please explain why you:

  1. think I was involved in that discussion
  2. did not raise the question of my alleged involvement directly with myself on Commons
  3. did not raise the question of my alleged involvement directly with the community on Commons
  4. chose to instead raise this issue on the echo chamber that is often Jimmy's talk page in a thread which somewhat ended up in attacking myself, knowing full well that I had no right of reply
  5. refused to answer the questions asked of you by Fae
  6. refused to answer the questions asked of you by BarkingFish, all whilst you continued to answer questions on other sections of your talk page
  7. think it's acceptable for yourself to hold the tools and an Arbcom position on this project when you have engaged in such ad hominem attacks.

As you can see, I am coming directly to you; remember the evasive, dismissive, and somewhat rude, emails you sent to myself?

As a sitting Arb on this project, where transparency is everything, I await your answer. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Also, given that you haven't edited on Commons in a long time now, would you possibly like to explain how you came to be at the place you made the "ad hominem" comments earlier today. In the interests of transparency you can answer that as well, can't you? Russavia (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This message, basically, boils down to a fact: your misunderstanding of the expression "ad hominem". There is a difference between "you closed a discussion when involved" and "you're nominating the files I uploaded for deletion because you want to harass me/are a homophobe/are a member of a hate site" – btw, for those wondering where I mentioned argumenta ad hominem, it's in Fae's RfA on commons.

But let me cut to the chase and answer the question you really wanted to ask: no, I don't consider myself involved wrt you and will not abstain should the committee vote on a motion/case/whatever about you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party suggests for editors to "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid." Your ad hominem against myself is in the second bottom section; just above resorting to calling someone an asshat.
The issue here is why you engaged in ad hominem attacks (your words btw) against myself. Again you stated:

by an editor who, by the way, could also be reasonably considered involved

As you can see from the ad hominem article, and the pyramid diagram to the right, it's a clear ad hominem, for you "attacked the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument." So I ask you yet again; why did you:
  1. state I was involved in that discussion;
  2. did not raise the question of my alleged involvement directly with myself on Commons;
  3. did not raise the question of my alleged involvement directly with the community on Commons;
  4. choose to instead raise this issue on the echo chamber that is often Jimmy's talk page in a thread which somewhat ended up in attacking myself, knowing full well that I had no right of reply;
  5. refused to answer the questions asked of you by Fae;
  6. refused to answer the questions asked of you by BarkingFish, all whilst you continued to answer questions on other sections of your talk page; and
  7. think it's acceptable for yourself to hold the tools and an Arbcom position on this project when you have engaged in such ad hominem attacks and refuse to directly address this issue.
I really don't know why it is so hard to answer very simple questions. If there were issues which make it unable to answer the questions, such as say editorial privacy, one could understand; but there's not.
It appears to me that you regard such questions more as an irritating inconvenience, and again you answer with evasive, dismissive, and totally off-point irrelevant answers. You used words such as "reasonably considered" in your statements, so you should be able to provide said reasons.
We expect our Arbs to be capable of critical thought and to be transparent in their dealings on this project, so for the second time would you like to answer the above questions. Russavia (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. The above P.S. question still stands too. Russavia (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


Salvio, at the top of your talk page you state:

Please don't interpret an error (even a really stupid one) on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you.

Does this still stand true? I believe you have made several serious errors in judgement in the case I have brought to your attention above, and continue to demonstrate poor judgement. This is not a personal attack on yourself in any way, shape or form, but you do hold a respected position of authority on this project, and such people should be open to civil discussion on these issues; as you yourself state you are.

If you were me, I would admit and explain my multiple errors in this case, apologise and move on. However, it appears from your comments above that for you to answer these questions would somehow make you involved with me; and your belief that's what the issue is, and it's not. But if you can't answer simple questions like this out in the open, how can editors on this project trust your judgement when it's done behind closed doors? Russavia (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I cannot see why there is a problem with answering Russavia's questions. In the long view, it's likely to deflate future problems arising. Treating Russavia with open and very public contempt is not helpful to him or those watching this situation develop. I suggest this molehill (if that's what it is) is flattened before it becomes yet another Wikipedia volcano.  Giano  12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Right User:Giano, I guess one might say that thus far Salvio is treating this matter with contempt, which also goes someway in demonstrating that such editors should be be considered unfit to hold positions of authority on this project (applying Salvio's own standards to himself). What this is about, is purely what I've stated above about him explaining his argumentum ad hominem against myself. It really isn't that hard to do; unless of course to do so would place him in some "recusal" zone; given that this is the only thing he assumes is being discussed here, in which case his statement about not being involved is dishonest. I think it's about time he recognised his grave error in judgement on this issue. Russavia (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting for a response Salvio. Russavia (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, it might be a good idea for you to go and find something better to do. This is a proper "mountain out of a molehill" area. Salvio made a comment over a year ago that "it could be reasonably argued that you were involved". I'll repeat the relevent point... over a year ago. Salvio clearly did not feel strongly enough to take it further and that should have been the end of it. There is no requirement for him to "explain himself" - it was not an admin action. So, take my advice, let it go. WormTT(talk) 09:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that Arbcom members rally together to protect their own -- I've seen it before and we've seen several Arbs quit the committee stating that such things are standard. But Salvio stated at the recent Arbcom election: "...in general, I value transparency." He has demonstrated anything but thus far in this case. Salvio also obviously felt strongly enough to talk about me in an echo chamber knowing full well that I had no right of reply at the source of the comment, and has continually failed to explain himself when asked to; starting at the time of the statement being made. Of course, this goes against his comments at the same Arbcom election: "I just wanted to point out that there are a couple of questions which I don't think I should answer; basically, I'm referring to the ones which ask me to express an opinion on fellow editors. I don't think it would be fair of me to comment on others here, where they cannot reply." Or does that only apply when one is an election period and the rest of the time it is open season? He obviously stands by his comments, as he hasn't retracted them in any way, shape or form. As you can see WTT, the comment may have been made 12 months ago, but now is the first opportunity I've had to address it personally, and the evasion has been occurring since the time of the comment being made and the initial "please explain" being asked. So he should reasonably be able to explain his position, and answer all of the questions being asked of him.
P.S. Salvio you also spend most of your time at CU; another question, do I need to point out the bleeding obvious? ↑↑ ↓↓ Or is that ok too? Russavia (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hang on Russavia, I'm only here because you pointed me here, Salvio and I have never discussed this matter, I'm not here as a rallying arb. (In fact, isn't that an "ad hominem" argument? Monkey see, monkey do, eh?) You pointed me here talking complaining about argumentam ad hominem, yet WP:INVOLVED a standard Wikipedia argument. Salvio appears to have moved passed the comment (made over a year ago, when he'd had a decision put against him), he is not required to strike, apologise or anything else.
Using a statement that Salvio made about arbitration processes is completely irrelevent, this isn't about transparency, it's about you getting a pound of flesh. If you've read Merchant of Venice, I'm sure you'll understand why I'm suggesting, very strongly, that you accept that you are not going to get an answer here and you get on with something productive. I won't be watching here further, if you want to talk to me about this, come to my talk page. WormTT(talk) 16:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yo Salv, about an SPI

Hey, Salvio, just wanted to let you know that I started an SPI for an editor that I think you may have recently acted on; should it be logged at the SPI? I have a feeling that this won't be the last we hear from them, which is why I'm thinking that documenting this out might be a good idea. You know best, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea to log it, though I think that DQ & Dennis have already done all the paperwork... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[1] without a doubt, but to be safe can you check it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeppers + Shankaryz (talk · contribs). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You also could have fixed the obvious typo Darkness Shines (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Crachapreto

It's unclear exactly who Crachapreto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of, and, given the accusations against Til Eulenspiegel, it would be useful if you would clearly state that it was or wasn't him.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't Til Eulenspiegel. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

False history propagated by a fellow with username Sitush

The fellow Sitush Sitush is continuously trying to create a propaganda against a particular community. This person seems to be biased and not fit to be an editor on Wikipedia.


Discretionary sanctions warning.

Hi Salvio. Could you take a look at this discussion? An editor has expressed concerns about the warnings. --regentspark (comment) 00:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rapid-fire changes to a caste article

Do you have time to check whether the series of changes that I have just reverted on Khangar (community) are in fact all made by the same person? If not then surely it has to be meatpuppeting. And if it isn't that then I am indeed a "dumbo". - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your ears are indeed normal, Sir. Those accounts are  Technically indistinguishable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't think I was capable of flying but I would have given it a go! - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that they may have returned as Vineeta Singh23 (talk · contribs). If proven then I'll ask for a semi-protection at WP:RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
And also as George Wayner (talk · contribs) and Vineeta Lal12 (talk · contribs) - same articles, same patterns. I think we may have an emerging long-term problem here! - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
George has been reverting this off the page a couple times, maybe its time to take a peek. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've indef blocked and removed talk page access for George. His last contribs here make the reason pretty obvious. A CU is definitely called for here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Now blocked Vineeta La112 as an obvious sock with unknown master. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The two Vineetas are socks of Rajiv Khanna44. George may or may not be (CU results don't help there)... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagged socks as confirmed. George was already blocked as VOA with no TPA, which is fine as it is. Thanks for the quick check. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to both of you. C.Fred must have spotted something because they have semi'd the Khangar article. The other caste article that they were editing remains open. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_63&oldid=1148818023"