User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 44

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

UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. ( Salvio Let's talk about it!)

Completed earlier today. Welcome! :) The Helpful One 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And also thanks for all the work you all have done, creating the new interface. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious - what is UTRS? I know of OTRS but presume that this is not a typo? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UTRS – a.k.a. Unblock Ticket Request System – is the evolution of unblock-en-l, the mailing list where blocked users could appeal their blocks when they were not allowed or not able to edit their talk pages. The new interface is similar to OTRS, I believe, though I'm unfamiliar with the latter, but it only deals with block appeals. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think that I've seen something about a new interface being rolled out. If it makes adminship chores easier then it can only be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Notification[edit]

Why notify me? I was not the one removing REF pieces but was the one making request for TALK and also more consensus WP:CON Last I checked that was still a major component of Wiki. --Sallynice (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you so that you're aware of the fact that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions – that's rather tautologic, I know... Those edits of yours were problematic, because you kept reverting another user who was removing material from a biography of a living person because he thought that it was in violation of WP:BLP. Said policy mandates that when material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

continued reverts[edit]

Hi, please take a look at this: here RicardoKlement (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issued a warning – I really would prefer to solve this issue without using my tools. Should he revert once more, I'll block. Thanks for getting this to my attention. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things appear to be getting very heated all round at the moment. I think that you may end having to use those tools, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Sitush. I just cleared my own talk page as a result of the original dispute having ended. RicardoKlement (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You used a somewhat insulting edit summary. You need to start learning, and fast. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Nothing blockable, in my opinion, but certainly sub-optimal! Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Many thanks for your kind words! Regards, GiantSnowman 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions on Caste issues[edit]

This was very much needed, thanks for taking the initiative. I'm thinking of making the "Indian subcontinent" part more clearer to include India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. I don't know much about Myanmar and Thailand caste equations, so we can probably include that if needed. Lynch7 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burma, not Myanmar <g> The person to speak with regarding that place is probably Blade. Do these issues extend into Afghanistan? - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm not really familiar with the various nuances of the issue (I studied – and researched a bit about – Hindu Law back when I was attending university, but this is it), so I welcome any and all corrections. As I said to Sitush, feel free to tweak my proposal. I'm not offended. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birthstones[edit]

Hi Salvio. Though I know this is a bit distant from your pace of work, could you help me find a photo chart of birthstones we can use? This article looks ridiculous without one. If you can't help, permission to copy this to other admins or editors? Please reply my talk, ok? Thanks!--Djathinkimacowboy 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth has not triumphed[edit]

Thank you. You know why. Now, the sooner those discretionary sanctions come in, the better. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. And the title of the section made me laugh. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. I could equally have said that "Verifiability always triumphs". Perhaps I should create a sock account in that name? Erm, then again, maybe not. :S Sitush (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that's an awesome username. I'm off to WP:CHUS! Verifiability always triumphs Let's talk about it! 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012[edit]

ANI closure[edit]

An admin who has apparently become involved in ARS just closed an ANI report I listed regarding the group and editor NorthAmerica1000. There was a very clear argument presented as it concerns the actions by North in creating this list immediately after the template got deleted in flagrant disregard for concerns raised by the community. Drmies also closed it within half an hour of an editor's comment and within five hours of it being listed. This is just like the last time when people were rushing to close any discussion about the group's activities.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was a bit surprised when the thread was closed, but I assume Drmies did it because he saw that I had snow closed the MfD and honestly believed there was nothing else to add, since the community had already indirectly endorsed this practice. That said, you really ought to talk to Drmies first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I seriously question Drmies' impartiality on this question. The response I just got at the editor's talk page, in light of the fact that Drmies has been involved with one of the incidents regarding the list, suggests re-opening would be best.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thread was closed prematurely, but it was destined to be closed as "nothing warranting admin action" as nobody, except MBisanz, opined that there was anything wrong with the list. My fear is that if I reopen it there'll be just a good amount of drama without reaching any conclusion other than "nothing to do here" – I don't know if you're aware, but we've been discussing on ANI's talk about ways to improve the noticeboards and one is an increased willingness on the admin's part to close down discussions to avoid drama. If you believe that there were canvassing issues with the AfD you were originally involved in, then take Drmies's advice and start a new thread; if, on the contrary, you object to the list's existence, I fear that the community has already said it does not appear to be blatantly inappropriate – so, maybe, an RFC would be a better idea... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about unblock[edit]

Ciao, Salvio. I see here that you unblocked EPublicRelationsMT, giving the reason as "per request on unblock-l". I wonder if you could give me more detail about the reason for this unblock? I am asking because it looks as though there may be some sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I believe the editor's use of a sock or, more probably, a meat was an honest mistake: they did not know it was against the rules – and, in fact, when the new account was blocked, they immediately ceased socking and contacted the unblock mailing list. There we had a discussion and the user appeared willing to follow WP:BESTCOI and to change the account's name, undertaking not to edit the articles adding spam links any longer, accepting to propose changes on the article's talk pages instead. I was convinced of their good faith and actioned the unblock request – blocks are cheap after all. Apparently, the user has not edited since and has not filed a rename request; I'm tempted to softblock again, inviting them to create a new account... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories. 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) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 AUSC candidacy[edit]

Further to our previous correspondence, your Audit Subcommittee candidacy page has been created. Please visit the page to review (and if necessary, edit) your nomination statement, as well as answer the standard questions. You should also keep watch for any further questions the community may pose. Feel free to contact myself or another arbitrator if you have any questions. Once again, thank you for your offer to serve on the subcommittee. –xenotalk 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out to edit[edit]

I think that this IP edit is a pretty obvious case of logging out to avoid 3RR! - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just undone their edit; had I caught it sooner, I'd also have blocked. Now it's a bit stale, though. I'll leave a short note on this user's talk page, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I am so sure that this was evasion that I actually said as much on their talk page, which probably was not the best move I have made so far today. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message on his talk page and thought there was nothing wrong with it – granted, warnings issued by uninvolved editors are usually receveid better than the ones issued by the person you're edit warring with, but you were calm and polite... So don't worry too much about it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:194.81.54.122 and copyvio edits[edit]

Fashion and Textile Museum copyvio edits are still ongoing - just a heads-up. I think if I revert any more I may be edit warring even though it appears that obvious copyvio reversions don't count. Not sure how to report them as the edit war report page seems to only be for users with a name rather than anon edits. Thanks so much Mabalu (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just issued a warning to the IP user, if they add copyvios again, I'll block. That said, reverting blatant copyvios such as this one is a 3-rr exemption, so don't fear: you won't get blocked. And IPs can be reported to WP:ANEW just as much as registered users. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Mabalu (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Surturz/AdminWatch[edit]

User:Surturz/AdminWatch, a page you are mentioned on, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch (2nd nomination). Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. I was aware of the page, but, to be honest, my opinion on its existence can be succinctly summarised as "meh"... I believe you might actually be making Surturz a favour by nominating the page for deletion, because you're giving it visibility – allowing him to get on his soapbox in the process. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review request[edit]

Please review [1] -- don't really understand the redaction Nobody Ent 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I don't see anything offensive there, but I'm not a native speaker, so I might be missing something... I have left a comment on Jehochman's talk page regarding the issue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag removal[edit]

Hey Salvio, do you think you can remove the Account creator flag on my account for now? I'm not creating accounts right now. Thanks in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 02:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. When you want the flag back, just ping me. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW on ARS list MfD[edit]

Would you consider re-opening the MfD? WP:SNOW does not mean "editors quickly flood the discussion in favor of one view" but that there is no basis for a reasonable objection. Five of the editors voting for keeping the list were members of ARS, two claimed there was no policy-based reason for deletion even though WP:CANVASS is just such a reason. One of the others voting keep appears to basically just go around AfD voting keep. I think two hours of discussion was not a lot of time to allow for discussion since those most directly notified were members or sympathizers of the group who would be more likely to vote keep.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to reopen the MfD, but please note that a. opening two different ANI threads and asking me to reopen the MFD may appear as forum shopping and will probably lead to drama; b. the number of keep !votes along with the absence of anyone arguing in favour of deletion, with the exception of the nominator, make it very improbable that the page will actually end up deleted, while, again, making it very probable that drama will ensue; c. the nominator acknowledged he may have jumped the gun there; d. various editors that would be defined as deletionists !voted to keep the list and e. there is no guarantee that the MfD will not be closed again in a couple of hours per snow. So, taking all this into consideration, do you really want the MFD reopened? Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that some people will react like I am forum shopping, but the first ANI thread was closed because of the MfD and several editors in the second ANI thread insisted the MfD settled the whole discussion. Obviously there was a feeling that the MfD was the final word on the subject and so re-opening that discussion for a full airing of all views would not really be trying to find a different way to achieve the same thing. Several people think the MfD close means my objections were invalid so re-opening the MfD and allowing it to remain open more than a few hours so that other interested parties might have time to respond seems to be the best forum to see if there was reason for action. Honestly, I didn't comment on the MfD because I wanted to see how the ANI discussion played out, so the MfD being opened at that time was clearly just a detriment to my attempt to address the issue. Essentially it split the discussion on the dispute with that deletion discussion being used to settle the other.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MfD reopened. I have serious doubts this will yield any results and the discussion will probably be reclosed quite soon, but there you go. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, really? How many times is this user going to be allowed to ask the same question, in different ways in different forums, but none of them productive? Come on Salvio, between this guy and Northamerica, both bumbling about blindly, how can we ever get back to work? Drmies (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad Reaper closed it again. Devil's Advocate, you can slowly, maybe, see a picture emerging: the horse is dead. [2]. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the shortest distance between two points is an arabesque... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One revert restriction?[edit]

And now what can I do when this happens? [3] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the removal of unsourced bits of info is not a 3-rr exemption, you start a discussion with the editor, be it on the article's talk page or on his talk page. This restriction is supposed to get you to talk to the editor you're reverting, instead of keeping on undoing his edits. That said, I have undone this user's edit. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee this guy will not use the talk page, but I will post on it next time he reverts. I will also point out I have always used the talk page to explain any removals or reverts I have made. Thanks. (Other than the made up one I was blocked for) Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, this is working out great [4] Again reverting uncited content into an article, and of course I can do nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone else can revert if policy is on your side. The point of this restriction is exactly this: to prevent you from edit warring, at the same time encouraging you to explore the various methods of dispute resolution Wikipedia offers. Reverting each other until one or both get blocked is not one of those methods. Discuss the issue on the talk page, seek a third opinion, start an RFC or a thread on WP:DRN, there are various way to try to successfully solve disputes.

      To tell you the truth, I'm starting to consider the opportunity of asking the community to impose an interaction ban on the two of you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did post on the talk page, he told me I was disruptive and to get sources from other articles. No need to bother with an interaction ban, I have seen all I need to. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what he said was that the same content could be referenced very easily from the linked articles from the internal links and, hence, he considered blanking it without at least a good-faith attempt at sourcing to be disruptive. As a matter of fact, I partially agree with him: while it's true the policy allows you to revert all unsourced contentious material, I believe at least a good-faith effort should be made to source it before removing the whole lot – basically gutting the article. TopGun said he'd try to source it as soon as he can; and I trust him. If he does not see to it in a reasonable period of time, then a discussion regarding disruption can be started. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last time he copied sourcing over from another article they failed verification. It was pure WP:OR. Like I said, don't bother yourself, I am not the first to notice he constantly adds unsourced content to articles and uses OR on a regular basis. He has even reverted in Op-Eds being used for statements of fact. Let him rampage and turn to trash every politically sensitive article on wiki, it is not my reputation being damaged. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have hard evidence (diffs) that TopGun behaviour is being disruptive and you (and others) have already tried to discuss the issue, but this has yielded no results, don't keep following him around reverting all his edits. You've been doing that for a bit, now. What has that accomplished? IF, as I was saying, you can prove his behaviour was disruptive, then just start an WP:RFC. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This restriction has been breached at [5] with reverts of (different) tags which were removed, disagreed, sentences cited inline and clarified by two users including me on the article talk and Afd. First he asked to verify, which I did, then added inline on request. This is fully cited content, anyway I'll like to keep the content dispute away from your talk page or any other unrelated page. If you like I can file at AN3. A note on above allegations, I've cited most of the content by now and all of DS's allegations are inappropriate, appreciate that you assumed good faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request you read this [6] Before listening to the block shopper. Adding CN tags is not a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Content dispute, 2) Personal attack, 3) Not understanding the meaning of a revert. None of above is a reason I can believe for trying to collaborate or not editwar. And then it is not just me who opposed this. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block shopper[7] No 3RR violations at all. Were have I seen this before? [8] O ya, that's the one. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scusa, Salvio, ma devo dirti qualcosa. Per da vero, per favore, non farai lo stesso errore che ha fatto Magog. Non reagire a questo sobra, altrimenti non avrai piú pace. TG non é cosí innocente come si presenta. Ora che Magog non reagisce piú ai sui domande, lui si cercha un'altro posto per domandare i block per altre persone. Cmq, scusa per il mio italiano. ;) Anche se DS non ha fatto proprio giusto giusto una cosa (io nn lo so), TG dovrebbe andare alle noticeboards. Ma la lo hanno detto questo e questo. JCAla (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs provided above have the same reasons as the recent blocks handed out by Magog after a result of repeated hounding by the mentioned user and me reporting that. I have however already offered to take this to a noticeboard. Your talk page is not the place for the report, but then this was not started by me but DS himself. Use of non-English above just explains JCAla's intent. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, everyone understands everything just by using google translator or by other means - as you obviously did. My using the Italian language was out of fun and appreciation for Italian culture. Get over your paranoia. Not everyone is hounding you. Capisci? ;) JCAla (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am a fan of Rome, the food, the wine, the history, the wine, the architecture, the wine. Rome rocks. My brother says the rest of the country is also fun. (must be he is going to move there) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've written on TopGun's talk page, baiting another editor into violating his restriction and then go block shopping can be construed as a form of WP:GAME. I hesitate to do anything further as the matter has already been settled by a fellow administrator at WP:ANEW – and, for what it's worth, I fully endorse Bwilkins's decision.

    And now for something different, I love Rome; Italy, however, has many more wonderful places that are not as much famous and that's a shame. I absolutely adore Umbria, for instance. And don't even get me started on Tuscany. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha, niente é come la bella Sicilia! Peró, é vero, la Toskana é veramente bellissima anche. L'aria, mangiare, don't get me started. JCAla (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    JCAla sono molto impressionato dal tuo Italiano – e dai tuoi gusti: la Sicilia è fantastica, sebbene la conosca peggio di quanto vorrei –. I miei complimenti! Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie. :) Amo come tutti gli impressioni (l'aria, suoni, odori, ...) sono tanto piú intensivi nella Sicilia. Poi, il mangiare, olio d'oliva, salsa di pomodoro fatto in casa, tutto un altro mondo ... :) JCAla (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a bit of legal clue?[edit]

I realise that your knowledge of law probably does not lie in the legal systems of India but there is a BLP issue at Vijay Kumar Singh which is pretty much based on fundamental legal concepts - when does a court recuse itself from adjudication etc - and newspaper reportage thereof. I will try to explain on the article talk page in a few hours' time and would be very grateful for your opinion there. As a Wikipedian with clue, obviously, rather than in a professional capacity. I think that we might be in some danger of misrepresentation unless someone with a degree of expertise casts their eye over it. And I am far from convinced that I have got it right, although I have used an attributed quotation in order to absolve myself. The obvious get-out clause would be to cite the alternative reportage but I'll set the stall out and let others decide how best to deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I left a note here regarding the sanctions issue. I hope that this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the tardy reply, but you caught me exactly as I was going to bed... I'll be glad to take a look at the article, though, as you imagined, Indian law is not exactly my field of expertise. Regarding the note on the Indian noticeboard, well done. I did not think about informing them, but it is quite reasonable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. You got there before I provided a full summary etc but you have clarified things quite a lot. Journos are often a bane, as I have experienced on a personal level ("interviews" that never took place, for example), but generally speaking The Hindu tends to be rated more reliable/less ambiguous than the Times of India, per discussions with experienced editors who actually live in India. The quote that I used did absolve us of a degree of responsibility but I will see if I can find some way of tightening things up because there is a clear doubt (an oxymoron, but I think that you will understand!). I think that Indian court documents are available as a public resource but they would be primary sources and probably not particularly helpful in this instance due to WP:OR etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. And I agree that you can never go wrong when you directly quote a newspaper, but if you can find a way to tighten up the wording that would be great. Regarding the use of court documents, they're certainly primary sources and should not generally be used due to WP:OR concerns, but, if I recall correctly, there was a policy somewhere that allows us to use primary sources to solve conflicts between secondary sources. I cannot for the life of me remember where that policy is located, however – or even be sure that it exists and I'm just not imagining it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_44&oldid=1148818640"