User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 8

Aaron Saxton

Hey you state my revisions upset Wikipedias "neutral point of view." there was NOTHING "neutral" about this article until I edited it. What is this? Is this rigged or something? I KNOW THIS PERSON PERSONALLY and I know first hand the background of this person. My information is TRUE - why are you suppressing it? This article is riddled with false information, stemming from hate groups. Wikipedia is not a hate group so why suppress the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.171.237 (talk • contribs)

Well, the edit in question is this. I think that it is highly biased and that's why I reverted it. One of the very first sentences is

[...]is a person who infiltrated and abused the policies and practices of the Church of Scientology while pretending to be a member of the Church's management group called the Sea Org. After he was discovered by the Church and kicked out for his criminal conduct he contacted Senator Nick Xenophon of Australia, who quoted statements by Saxton about "Scientology" into the parliamentary record of the Australian Senate in November 2009. Senator Xenophon did not try to clarify or verify the truth of Saxton's claims but instead, used his position in the South Australian government and Saxton's misinformation and fabricated lies to further a personal hate agenda against the Church Of Scientology.

This is definitely not neutral. And, by the way, it also violates our policy regarding biographies of living people. The first thing you should do is find a reliable source and then you can insert those bits of info in the article; however, you should strive to be as neutral as possible. Verbs such as "infiltrated" and "abused" are very loaded, for instance; and "criminal behaviour" is as well, as is "fabricated lies to further a personal hate agenda".

And, finally, please try to remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi Salvio Thanks so much for your quick comment and great advice. I hear you. I am a volunteer working for VSO so do have a touch of distance. I saw another organisation's Wikipedia page (very similar in scope of activity) and that is what made me consider one for Hold the Future. I will stick with as much impartiality as one can stick with when talking about disabled young people, especially those knocked by Agent Orange. At this stage I'm struggling with just trying to put an article together! Hanoi Volunteer 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Volunteer (talk • contribs)

I'm glad to hear it!

Please don't take me as a spoilsport, however, but I have to inform you that to qualify for inclusion, an organisation has to meet our notability criteria; if it doen't, then, the article about it usually gets deleted after a discussion. If you think your organisation does meet our criteria, you can create the article and I'll be glad to help you with our markup, because I know it can be very complicated at first. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting confused now as to how to reply as the Let's talk button doesn't seem to work this time around. So I am hoping this will get to you! Sorry, I am a senior citizen so bear with me. I have put up a page with my article in draft. I would appreciate it if you could comment on that and let me know if that is ok. I must just say that the Bright Future Group is nowhere near as notable as Hold the Future. And they have a page on Wikipedia. In fact I would be surprised if they are still going. Hanoi Volunteer 15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Volunteer (talk • contribs)

Well, first a few "technical" things: the "let's talk 'bout it" button doesn't work, because it links to this page, so it would be kinda superfluous; to write to me, you can click on the "edit" tag that you see at the beginning of each section or press the "+" icon at the top of the page, if you wish to create a new section. That said, to sign your edits you should type four tildes, ~~~~. The system automatically signs and timestamps your posts.

Then, I don't really know anything about Bright Future Group (and I must admit I know nothing of Hold the Future...), so I cannot say if one is more notable than the other; however, we have a policy by which you cannot argue that something deserves inclusion only because something else less notable is included.

I know that it can be very disconcerting to try and navigate through this sea of policies; so, if you wish to familiarise yourself with the most important, you can read this page. And do not fear, since we know how difficult it is, we have a policy that requires us not to bite newcomers, even if they make mistakes.

That said, I'll be happy to take a look at your article and get back with constructive criticism. If you wish to receive more opinions, however, you can ask on this noticeboard and you'll receive much help. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great! Thanks so much. I will rewrite those bits. Can you confirm for me that this article will be 'notable' enough for publication. And then I have a query, does Wikipedia allow video yet? Hanoi Volunteer 03:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Volunteer (talk • contribs)

Well, it's still a little promotional, but that will be taken care of by other editors if you create the article. As far as notability is concerned, I think the organisation passes our criteria, but don't take it as Gospel truth, please; it seems to have received coverage in reliable sources and from what I can gather the scope of their activities is national in scale.

And yes, Wikipedia allows video; but I'm afraid I can't explain you how to upload one and how to link to one, because I myself wouldn't know where to start, I'm sorry. The only caution I can give you is to avoid uploading or linking to copyrighted material.

And finally, please use the four tildes (~~~~) to sign your post. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Hope you had a great week-end. I'm still trying to move my page to mainspace. At this stage I need some Editors to check it out, I think. Would you be able to help here? Thanks!Hanoi Volunteer 12:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Volunteer (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Yep, I'll lend a hand; I'll read it and move it. Just don't take it personally if, once moved, your article gets tagged with maintenance tags.

Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. Actually, it seems you were successful in moving it. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Will you adopt me and help me with anything i need?I am only 12.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to; however, I'd like to ask you two questions first:

what do you expect of adoption? and
how do you think I could help you?

This is not meant as an interrogation, so be as candid as you can

. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well a)I expect some help if i am confused or stuck on a particular thing and b)Helping me if i need some help.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's perfect.

Regarding the CSD tagging, would you be willing to stop tagging articles for a short period of time and report how you would tag an article on a subpage I'd create just for it instead, so that we can discuss about it? It wouldn't be a very long thing, just long enough to allow me to see if your tags would be spot on, in order to avoid biting newcomers. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok!,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. Whenever you want to start, I'm ready.

Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elmore County, Alabama

Hey sorry, but I really don't understand what was wrong with my edit to Elmore County. Please explain. I have academic sources!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.62.198 (talk • contribs)

This was the edit in question. Please, do not make any more like that or you'll be blocked (even if you have academic sources, I fear). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Help Again

Hi Fellow editor, I was wondering whether you could intervene and act as a voice of reason. As you can see an editor is getting rather abusive here. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was definitely unpleasant; however, in my opinion it was not abusive and the user no longer posted on your talk page after your warning (actually, it seems to me that he is willing to discuss). So, really, I wouldn't know what you might wish me to do. After all, I'm not an admin, so I cannot issue blocks; I can only try to talk people into discussing, which is what he apparently is doing. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adopting me

Well, Salvio giuliano, I think we'll be friends for a while. Your kindness has enraged me but taught me a lesson I'll never forget. Ciao! Coco, "I AM SHIBUBU, THE ALLMIGHTY GOD OF TELEVISION!"

Err, I'm a bit slow, at this time of the day; are you here to ask me to adopt you?

If so, please, answer the following two questions:

what do you expect of adoption? and
how do you think I could help you?

This is not meant as an interrogation, so be as candid as you can

. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages and adoption

If I promise to stop tagging pages,will you take me back? I am sorry if I caused you any disrespect.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your apology, but I'm sorry I'm not going to have you as my adoptee. I don't wish to be mean, and I wouldn't want to have this conversation, but if I adopt someone I'd like them to be straightforward. If they don't agree with what I propose, I wish they'd discuss it with me. That's what I talk about when I say it's a matter of maturity. I saw you were going behind my back and I approached you; you didn't discuss and you kept on doing what you were doing before.

Sincerely, even if we continued, I fear all my words would fall on deaf ears.

Please understand that I'm not holding a grudge, I'm neither angry nor disappointed. It's just that I don't see how I might help you, which is what any kind of mentorship is all about. I sincerely wish you all the best with your new mentor. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's about one more chance.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not make it more awkward than it already is: I don't think I can successfully mentor you, that's why I've discontinued the adoption. Trust me it was a meditated decision (and an unpleasant one for me too, at that). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my comments on this matter are at User_talk:Gobbleswoggler#Adoption_and_more. Frank | talk 14:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only thing I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree with every word. Gobbleswoggler is a good kid, but he can be just too eager for his own good at times... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modemhead

Dear Salvio,

Thank you for your interest in maintaining the Modemhead profile page active. I am the original creator, along with Victor Grigas, of that page. I no longer want to keep it posted on Wikipedia for two reasons, (1) my name shows up on it upon a google search and (2) we already maintain this information on a private wiki outside of this website. My deletion was valid and not an attempt to vandalize. Thank you for respecting my decision to no longer maintain this page.

-Alberto Aldana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.41.114 (talk • contribs)

Whoops, I'm sorry. If you wish to have it deleted — and not only blanked —, you could log on under your previous username, if you still have its password, and post {{db-u1}} there.

Anyway, apart from that, assuming good faith, I'm not going to revert you, if you blank it. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uploading

Hi Salvio I think I'm ready to upload my page. What is the next step? You check it first? Hope you are having a great week-end. Regards Hanoi Volunteer 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Volunteer (talk • contribs)

Yes, thanks!

I'm off to bed now, so my reply might be a little on the short side; I'll take a look at your draft as soon as I can (not before Monday, I fear, though; I'm sorry, but I'm a bit tied up these days). Anyway, when you think your article is ready for prime time (my suggestion would be to ask at WP:FEED too, for your first article, as they're much better than I am at creating content), you can move your draft to the mainspace; to do that, you have to be an autoconfirmed user to move pages; that means you still have to wait one day. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your message!

Hello Salvio!

Hope all is well.

I work for the talent acquisition organization at First Data, and wanted to add our carreer sites (official + networking) for individuals to find it on our wikipedia profile.

Being the official sites, I thought it would be ok to post in the main content. is it not the case?

If so, is there another alternative to it, than posting on "external links"? --> it sounds as if the career sites were not official to first data.

cheers,

Carlos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaenzs (talk • contribs)

Hello Carlos and welcome to Wikipedia!

In my opinion, the addition of those links is inappropriate, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that should only report verifiable facts regarding notable subjects in a neutral way. Wikipedia should not be used to advertise or as a job centre; in my opinion, if one wanted to work with you, they should not use Wikipedia but Google. That's why I removed the links. However, if you disagree with me and think they should be inserted in the article, please discuss this issue on the article's talk page, to see what others think; if consensus is that those links belong in the article, I shan't bother you again!

By the way, one last thing, if you work for First Data, I invite you to read our policy regarding conflicts of interest. Please note that I'm not implying you're violating it, but I think you should familiarise yourself with it nonetheless.

If you need any help, feel free to ping me on my talk page and I'll try to assist you or type {{helpme}} on your talk page and then your question; someone will be along shortly to answer it. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio,

Is posting these links (official fd carreer sites) appropriate on the external links section where our official website is?

Carlos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaenzs (talk • contribs)

I'd say it isn't, although I admit I'm not certain; that's why I'd prefer it if you asked for opinions on the article's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Knecht

Thanks for your note, sensible idea, I have no issue with your move at all. Thanks.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian Prime Ministers by time in office

Is 2010 really Silvio Berlusconi's last year in office, and therefore the number of days of his term is correct? Or should this article be updated every day he remains in office? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I fear it's the latter... He still has some two years and a half to go, if I'm not mistaken (and if he doesn't get shot down before)... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

Yeah, I've been all over the place... Boston, Montreal, Pacific Ocean... So I haven't been on that much! I've been dong pretty well. You? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working...

So I admit I envy you a bit. My job on Wikipedia's pretty boring these days: all vandals are on holiday and I have very little to do. Would you go on a vandalism spree just to give me something to do?

Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha I can see the administrators just loving that!

--- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, yeah, that might have some unpleasant side-effects... I fear I'll have to wait for an old-fashioned vandal to show up.

BTW I see you've been granted the rollback flag; have you tried Huggle or Igloo yet? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would so love to, but I can't install any new programs on my computer—I'm working on a shared computer and it's kinda virus-y and everyone using it has agreed not to install any new programs since the installation of OpenOffice sent it into full-scale temper tantrum (it was scaaary! )

--- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as WikiGryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 02:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for informing me! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Reverting

Didn't see that coming...must have accidentally hit a rollback button on my watchlist. Undid my rollback. Sorry! Now to see if theres some CSS I can use to get rid of those watchlist rollback links. FunPika 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no problem. For a moment, there, I feared I had reported a legit username...

And there is a way to avoid showing the rollback button, but I unfortunately cannot remember for the life of me what it is... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks

No problem at all. See you around! Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The amazing race 12

Of course not. I'm more than happy to have people correct my mistakes so long as they tell me why. Helps me learn from them :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting The amazing race 12

I noticed a friend of mine had redirected the above article to the original page and took a look. I believe that the results table being created (for that is what it looks like) will contain nothing that the original results table already contains. I already reverted it, and the original editor reverted it back, so I'm going to leave a similar message on his talk page, revert it again and then leave it to see what happens. Just thought you should know :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I saw it too. I didn't think about checking if there was another page... The redirect was indeed the best solution. Anyway, thanks for letting me know! Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Soapboxing

My lengthy post on the talk page of Murder of Meredith Kercher describes in considerable detail what I believe belongs in the article -- seems fair to me. Feel free to point out anything that you don't think is sourced. And if it's sourced and a summary of what reliable sources are saying, it isn't soapboxing. The sourcing is all there although it does not appear properly on the talk page. If you paste it into a sandbox in its entirety the footnotes should show up properly. The material belongs in the article although perhaps not all in one place -- some of it should be dispersed although I think there is a place for a criticism section. Criticism sections are common in Wikipedia. If this one is longer it is because criticism of the tribunal is a central theme that belongs in the article.

The allegations of a litmus test are fully supported by facts. It's not Ok to just reject reliable sources because somebody doesn't like what they have to say and that is what is happening in multiple cases here. Wikipedia does require that good faith be assumed, but does make provision for moving beyond that when the evidence is there. I am not accusing you of bad faith.

Also, on your pages about the Italian judicial system, I would be curious to see what you have to say about the right of public access to the trial record. The fact is that with the exception of one (maybe two) judicial opinions not a single document from the trial record is available for public inspection on the internet. See also Frank's blog for Oct-08 where actual autopsy photos of the victim's arms have made it into the public domain. This can be presumed to be part of an effort by police officials to influence public opinion prior to trial. The idea is that the injuries to her elbows indicated multiple attackers. Another picture of her bloody hand shows parts of the victim's nude corpse in the background. Pure corruption that should be discussed in the article.PhanuelB (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you're confusing different policies. You say that everything you write there is sourced; for the sake of the argument, I shan't dispute that (even though a very good point has been raised on the talk page, regarding the difference between sourced and attributed). However, sourcing is required to comply with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Soapboxing, advocating and giving undue weight, on the contrary, are not permitted under Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. So, even if everything you state there is sourced, it still can't be included if it violates WP:NPOV.

It's not a matter of not liking what sources have to say; it's just that they are only opinions. I don't think criticism should be hidden or Amanda's guilt taken for granted. Actually, I don't even know if she did it, because, quite frankly, I never studied the case, but I'm convinced that if a Court of law convicted her, there must have been sufficient evidence to warrant that. Italy's not Soviet Russia... My point is that the article shouldn't mainly revolve around criticism of the trial or attempts at soiling Guede's reputation, by implying that he was a lone killer, as that, primarily, violates WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not there to retry Amanda. As I've said, I agree that criticism should be reported; it is notable and rather easily sourced. However, that should not be the focus of the article.

Finally, as I wrote on the article's page, technically the trial record is publicly avalaible, but that doesn't mean that it was actually accessed or published (even in Italian, for that matters)... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all sources are opinions. If you haven't studied the case, perhaps you shouldn't be collapsing the detailed discussions of those who have. Why do you think this case is notable? The answer is that it's notable because of question's about whether Amanda Knox got a fair trial so yes it should mainly center around whether AK and RS (and not Guede) got a fair trial. If it was just about an Italian young man getting railroaded -- which also happened -- then it wouldn't have gotten worldwide attention. The "soiling of Guede's reputation" is fully sourced in every respect and is integral to the worldwide allegations that this was a kangaroo court.

I do not think you are correct that the trial record is public knowledge and I don't understand what you mean when you say "that doesn't mean it was actually accessed or published." It sure seems that posters on PMF believed they were prohibited from publishing actual documents some of which have been selectively been provided to the press by public officialsPhanuelB (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the case from what I read in newspapers and here; I haven't studied the case (which means I haven't read the Court's rationale and/or examined all bits of evidence gathered) and, so, I don't think I can say that I know better than the Court of law that convicted. That's what I meant when I said I haven't studied the case.

Regarding the claim that all sources are opinions, I direct you to Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion, that, I think, responds to the argument way better than I could. We don't need, at least in my opinion, a shopping list of why any single commentator/journalist/politician/entrepreneur/whoever thinks about this case... Now, that, in my opinion, would violate NPOV. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]