User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 29

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

Nicosia[edit]

Hi Salvio. As you know there has been an ongoing dispute at Nicosia. I have made a suggestion to split the article in two parts due to recent changes by Seric2. He most recent action was to remove sections where good references were provided without prior discussion. In the discussion page there is an ongoing discussion with references, which should be the way things are done. If you have a look there are many users who agree on what changes need to be made, however this user keeps changing content without prior discussion. We can't grow the page this way so my suggestion is to split the article in two parts (Nicosia and North Nicosia) so that each part can grow separately. I'd be interested to see your opinion on this in the discussion page. Thanks Masri145 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Salvio, I know I made some edits in order to remove the mistakes from the article! Nicosia has never been divided between Southern and Northern part! Legal Nicosia is only ONE and does not include Turkish illegal Municipality! Nicosia belongs to Republic of Cyprus and is recognised worldwide! Please try to remove pictures relating to illegal "Northern Nicosia" to article North Nicosia, which was created for it exclusively

I totally agree with the unsigned comment above (I assume its Yeroskipou3). Insted what Seric2 and Seb az86556 are doing can be considered vandalism. First they're not engaging in any form of discussion and then they are removing valid references. The common position of the users who engaged in a proper discussion in the discussion page is that there is only ONE Nicosia and all information relating to the north part of the city should be placed at North Nicosia. If some users have different opinions they should discuss rather than disrupting the article. This is clearly not happening by Seric2 and Seb az86556. Masri145 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Salvio, I left you a question (in response to your question) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RobertMfromLI. Please weigh in; my oppose depends on it. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rollback request[edit]

Hi Salvio,

thanks for being so quick to deal with my rollback request. I have not used twinkle before and will check it out. I have done a number of vandalism repairs over the years, most in the reptile section are by ip users with multiple edits and hence the only way I can do it at this stage is to copy the desired edit and paste it as a new edit. I only write turtle related pages and hence anything other than this is a vandalism repair. I am not sure what shows up as a vandalism repair so thought I would point this out. I am somewhat reluctant to repair this way as it shows me as the writer of the page and as I did not write it, but copied it from a previous edit, I feel this gives me undue credit for the article. I am a professional scientist, and writer. The concept of plagiarism is important to me. I left messages for User_talk:ZooPro#Rollback_privelages.. before doing this and he encouraged me to do this this way. I am an admin on Reptipedia, and the rollback feature I automatically have there seemed a better way to deal with vandalism. Please don't take this wrong I respect your decision and will endeavor to help out in better ways as per your suggestions. I just wanted to explain myself. Thanks again, cheers Faendalimas talk 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all you're right, it didn't show up as vandal fighting, though it technically is...

In these cases, when you have to revert to an old revision of the page, however, you do not need to copy and paste its content (and you do not necessarily need rollback either); rollback does it in one click of the mouse, but there is another, slightly longer method. First, you identify the last "good" edit in the article's history, then click on "prev", you'll see the two diffs side by side and you'll notice "Revision as of XX:XX, DD Month YYYY (edit)". If you click on "edit" and then save the page, any changes made since then will be removed. Alternatively, you can use Twinkle to revert all edits by a user or to restore a given version. Happy editing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried out Twinkle on two vandalism's just now and I like the way it works. I will also endeavor to do the warnings which I have been somewhat remiss of. As a non admin etc, I have been letting that go for admins to do. However, you are right, if I fix the page I should also be doing the warning. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Citing sources[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

banned IP was evading block[edit]

The IP, 188.107.5.219 whom you banned was evading a block 84.59.190.210. This IP is only here to make non constructive and ethnic POV edits. He has been calling for ethnic cleansing of Pashtuns and insulting Wikipedians. A permanent or long term solution is needed to block this IP. Otherwise, he will come back and continue with disruptive editing and give a headache to more wikipedians. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

He is back under a different IP 188.107.6.231. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Blocked for a week for block evasion... I'll post a follow-up to WP:AN... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The user appears to now be registered as AhmadShahAbdali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is a block on that account in order as well? —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:EVADE, yes, he should be blocked; however, if he doesn't start with his theatrics again, I'd give him a bit of rope, to see what he does with it. That said, I'll defer to whatever consensus should emerge from the WP:AN thread. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is evading in your face and calling for the death of people and you still allow him is a terrible thing. I have some information on this person. AhmadShahAbdali (talk · contribs) is in Germany using an open proxy (on the web browser he clicks on "Tools" then "Internet options" at the bottom, then selects "Connections" on the top followed by "LAN settings" and adding German IP addresses and port numbers that are constantly active and then starts editing Wikipedia). It takes him less than a minute to change his regular home-registered IP which is 82.83.137.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to that of the 84.xxx, 88.xxx, 188.xxx, and 94.xxx, and his regular Wikipedia name is Lysozym (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Tajik (talk · contribs). He just stated: "If you keep on I will ask Lysyzym for support who will provide his sources...".[1]. He is basically saying that I will soon change my IP to the 82.83xxxx range and log under Lysyzym and then come here to provide sources, etc.--Dupree fan (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dupree Fan (do you actually know who dupree is?) you are a sockpuppet of banned User:Nisarkand and Lagoosab, Behnam, Afghan4Ever etc. User:Tajik:: is not existing and Lyzsym is not me. Every admin can check that! All the IPs are from Germany I use but all of them have the same root. It is you and Ketabtoon, two Pashtun ultra-nationalists (both were many times banned) who falsyfie articles, delete sources and references etc. and than call for vandalism for other Users. Soon, the Admins will ban you again. I have created now this account to start working here regularely, basing on the rules and laws of Wikipedia--AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: AhmadShahAbdali indeffed due to his lovely theatrics; this should teach me... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shoudn't it be WP:AN/I? ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 10:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altan's concert tours[edit]

I disagree about your speedy deletion of the Altan's concert tours article I created almost one month ago! During that month, this article didn't bother anyone ! This article was useful until you decided to delete it! Many other "concert tours" articles exist concerning other bands! It's not fair to delete one's hard work! This is a sort of censorship...

Lurulu (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not censorship it's just that old AfDs constitute precedents: if you recreate a page that was deleted after a community discussion, it can be speedily deleted under criterion G4, which is exactly what I did. I'm sorry I deleted your hard work, however.

That said, please read WP:OSE: the fact that many other "concert tours" articles exist concerning other bands is not a valid argument for the inclusion of a "concert tours" article concerning this particular band. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree: I do think this argument is valid... This "particular" band deserves a "concert tours" article! You may be sorry about deleting my hard work but in fact you don't care at all! Wikipedia rules are too much restrictive! Lurulu (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rollback page[edit]

I think that it might be a good idea to remove my "conversation" with that other member that we had on the rollback page. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't deem it disruptive, so I don't think it needs to be removed; after all, comments from non-admins are welcome and, often, quite useful. If you wish to remove it, however, I won't complain. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I don't want to step on the other editor's toes which is why I asked for a rollback admin for approval. Since I am keeping it there, I will go back and fix my typos. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping and resolving this problem, I tried my best to be a roll backer but I want to be one as soon as possible because, I watch most of the articles such as terrorism and crime and I watch those pages in order to avoid vandalism. I really want to be a rollbacker in terrorism topics. Please reply as soon as possible.--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but rollback gives you access to tools such as Huggle and Igloo, with which a user can create a massive mess even with the best of intentions. You seem a good user, but I'd like to see a bit more experience in vandal fighting before granting you this flag. You have Twinkle; it allows you to revert edits just like rollback, see here and to issue warnings to vandal. Just read WP:NOTVAND please and remember that only bad faith edits are vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some today vandal fighting before I was going to be approved I did some of it such as Essam Marzouk, Strasbourg cathedral bombing plot, 2011 Horn of Africa famine and Ahmed Ressam. I did download the program and i'm sure that I can be a rollbacker. I would thank you for the support and please reply as soon as possible. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here you reverted three entirely constructive edits: [2][3][4]... Rich Farmbrough is an admin; I doubt he'd ever vandalise... Please stop asking for rollback; I don't want to be mean, but I'm not going to change my mind until you can show me you understand what vandalism is and that you will not be hasty with rollback. And, as far as I'm concerned (though, to be honest, I must point out that other admins may have different criteria), that'll take at least some weeks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that he has 900,000 edits. --Σ talkcontribs 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got the main point. Now I'm using twinkly software in order to make it well. I will try my great skills then I will apply for a rollbacker next year or next 2 years.--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin[edit]

Salvio - Hello. In May you deleted this page User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin - by way of full disclosure, I, Austex, am the subject of the page - which was being held in suspense but was never re-worked by the User Milowent. I'm not asking for a roll back or reinstatement, but rather if you would un-delete it briefly and simply save a copy for future potential re-working. It can be saved at User:Austex/Donald G. Martin, an empty page created only for this purpose, or wheverever you think is appropriate. I do not intended to re-work it myself as that would be a COI, but at some point I hope someone might. There were numerous serious significant ommissions and it would be easier for someone to some day fix this one than to create it all over again from scratch if that were ever to occur. Thanks for your consideration. Austex • Talk 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't. The page was deleted after a community discussion; therefore, to restore it to another location would circumvent the result of that MfD. Furthermore, per WP:UP#COPIES, Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. So, I can't restore the page, but, if you wish, I'd be happy to email a copy of it to you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. An email copy would be great, thank you. A link to my email is on my User page at User:Austex Austex • Talk 22:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New e-mail[edit]

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.

-Onewhohelps (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imbenta[edit]

Restored as requested, looks nn/spammy to me, but life's too short... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree that it seems not notable at the moment, however; I'll have a shot at sourcing it properly and, barring that, I'll send to AfD. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurmi page[edit]

Why did you PPed Kurmi page? Which sockpuppets were caught? One more thing, I see the even likely cases are termed as sockpuppets. Do you think what is happening is fair. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't know if the various IP users who edit the page are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, because I'm not a checkuser; what I know, though, is that, across the topic area, there are many people removing everything that even remotely refers to the alleged śūdra status of the various castes — on Kurmi, lately, even the fact that the group's Varna classification is a subject of dispute was contested and summarily removed... —.

Such edits are unhelpful and need to be stopped. Not because I personally believe that Kurmis are śūdras, but because I believe that this dispute should be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia rules, which do not approve of edit warring. I thought that semi-protecting the article would be a good compromise, because it still allows every editor who's been here for more than four days and has made more than ten edits to edit the article; and all those who do not meet this very low threshold, can propose a change on the article's talk page. All in all, so, in my opinion, semi-protection is not that onerous...

Regarding the fairness of the general situation, my personal opinion is that there is a good amount of frustration on both sides; some of the involved editors consider themselves besieged and are sometimes a bit too fast on the trigger, but I must admit that I understand them, because they believe they're acting in keeping with Wikipedia's rules and keep having to repeat the same arguments over and over again. On the other hand, their "opponents" are frustrated too, because they feel they're facing people who insult their caste and don't care if that's done on purpose or not and I can very easily sympathise with that too. For my part, I'm convinced that there is an undergoing conflict between Wikipedia's verifiability requirements and the traditions of some cultures, where the oral transmission of knowledge is considered the norm, which, coupled with the importance of Varna, makes for a rather explosive environment. Unfortunately, though, there's very little one single person can do... My suggestion, to minimise drama, considering the sensitivity of the issue, would be the usual try and follow Wikipedia's rules as much as possible, which is what most of the involved editors are doing, lately, by the way... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I noticed you are an administrator, I left a request on WP:PERM/R quite a while ago, and no-ones been around to either grant or deny the request, could you end the waiting please? Thankyou. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your request, but I thought best not to action it, as I was the one who declined your previous one and, so, deemed it would be more appropriate to let someone else deal with it... I'm sorry! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, I'll wait. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP of Kurmi[edit]

So you know that the semi-pp is being contested. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note; I got there too late, but checking the page history I've been able to read Ed's response. Again, thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amaeeandherfriend/Mystery[edit]

Hi Salvio. Would you delete User:Amaeeandherfriend/Mystery per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages in user space? User:Amaeeandherfriend is the former username of Shannon1 (talk · contribs). Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cunard (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Thisthat2011.[edit]

See User talk:Thisthat2011#Your return. Someone else brought this to my attention, ie: I was not stalking. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Could I have acted in a different fashion? How can we proceed? I feel that the three weeks were not enough and we are dealing with an incurably disruptive user, but I admit I might be over reacting, so a fresh set of eyes would be good.--Cerejota (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a new thread at ANI. I am not going to be dragged into his tornado of drama without community action.--Cerejota (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of A1?[edit]

Hi, I recently changed the speedy rationale of a page from A1>A7 because I thought I could understand what the article was trying to say (but subject wasn't notable). The original tagging user has asked me to explain it a bit further. Think you could give your best understanding of it, as I don't really know how to put it. Thanks, --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 09:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for my delay; when I got to Red Rover112's talk page, the conversation had already been archived... In short, I completely agree with your actions; the article was incredibly poorly written, but it made clear that the kid is an actor who has played a role in a sitcom. So, deletion under A1 was inappropriate, because context was there.

A1, from my experience, is one of the most rarely used criteria (correctly, at least); checking my latest 500 deletions, I only used it twice. Simply put, I consider that a short article is eligible for speedy deletion under A1 if, reading it, I have a WTF? moment. Two examples: Ramesh purella, File:G:\simha\Family\17102010092.jpg this is santosh.srip .he is, and Rubs forehead twice, A secret to all who don't know. RULE 1!!!!.

If you're interested, here is a very good essay WP:WIHSD — this is the section dealing A1 — and here is a rather old survey, showing how often this criterion is misused... Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought...in fact now I remember you taught me about A1 when I first started NPP. I'll read those pages you suggested. Thanks!--Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 01:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

Considering my recent days-vandal fighting, would you do me the honor of promoting me to Rollbacker? :) Alex discussion ★ 14:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. But please remember that rollback is only meant for blatant vandalism. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_29&oldid=1046347472"