User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 98

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

Deleted Draft: PerryGolf

Hello, recently you deleted my draft for PerryGolf. I was wondering if any version of this draft can be restored so I can send a copy of it to my boss. I understand that the article was not neutral enough for wiki's standards, and with that in mind I would like to continue editing until I can create a worthwhile draft. I didn't anticipate the draft being deleted out of the blue as I hoped it could continue to be a working document, but I do need to be able to report the original draft to my company. Thank you. Brburri (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Brburri: I have undeleted the page Draft:PerryGolf. Please copy it and let me know when you are done, so that I can delete it again. Best. Salvio giuliano 17:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't understood you meant to turn the page into a WP:FAKEARTICLE, as such I have re-deleted it and am not going to restore it. Salvio giuliano 17:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not know what a 'wp fake article is'
I merely intend to copy the contents and paste to a word document to email to my boss
please restore the page so I may do so. Brburri (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
You removed all indications that it was a draft, removed much of the content, except the introduction and added (or left) a template, which are usually put at the top of articles, which gave me the impression you were trying to make the draft appear as if it were an article. If you only needed to copy the contents, I don't understand why you'd do that. Salvio giuliano 17:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, I have sent you the draft by e-mail. Salvio giuliano 17:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Redev and block

Could you please erase https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Ashton-Cirillo&diff=prev&oldid=1142752260 from public records and block the troll responsible? Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Done and done, cheers. Salvio giuliano 08:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Lettler's articles

Hi! So, weird situation this one. User:Lettler was originally blocked as a sockpuppet of User:HughD. However, they were later unblocked by ARBCOM as it was determined that they were not a sockpuppet and the ban was incorrectly done in the first place. I'm happy for Lettler there, though sadly it appears this incident is likely to have driven them from the project, as they haven't edited since except to add this to their userpage. Regardless, I've been going through their edit history and looking at what articles of theirs were deleted under G5 and requesting undeletion. For those you were involved in that would be these:

Could you undelete these? Several of them are probably just redirects, but it's hard for me to tell which from my end of things. SilverserenC 21:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the pages, thanks for the note. I'm sorry to see we blocked an innocent user and deleted all of his creations... Facepalm Facepalm Salvio giuliano 21:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I honestly wish I had gotten around to asking a lot sooner, but it had slipped my mind until I was reminded of what happened to them today. SilverserenC 21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the wording of 3RR

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted page

Page was revised and update by other contributors but deleted by you? Not understanding this Marcelus.arnault (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus.arnault, as you know, Rodshir Dailë was nominated for deletion and you participated in the discussion. I have now closed the discussion and found that the consensus was in favour of deletion and, therefore, I have actioned the result. In short, Mr Dailë was found not to be notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, because he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that are independent of him. —  Salvio giuliano 09:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirect question

Would I be wrong to create a redirect from FCIV.NET to Freeciv?   ArcAngel   (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

ArcAngel, not at all, feel free to do so. —  Salvio giuliano 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to be sure.  :-)   ArcAngel   (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
ArcAngel, wait, did you mean Wikipedia:FCIV.NET or FCIV.NET, because the former is not an appropriate redirect, whereas the second is permissible... —  Salvio giuliano 20:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The former. I can fix it if need be. Fixed.   ArcAngel   (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
ArcAngel, thanks. I have speedied the page for WP:G7. I am sorry I misunderstood it earlier, but it was an implausible cross-namespace redirects. I thought you meant to recreate the article about the game that was just deleted as a redirect. Again, sorry for the confusion. —  Salvio giuliano 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Picts WP:DRN

Hey Salvio!

I just had to let you know a couple of things... I opened a DRN case about the Picts. Mutt has consistently attacked my intelligence there too. Also, Mutt insulted you twice on their own talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't catch it, as they hid their insults very well and in a convoluted way, and I'm sure you were too busy to actually read into what they said. They said this: "To advance an interpretation of ATWV that to fail is actively disruptive seems less-than careful and an "accusation of impropriety", which is hardly English, but I believe what they mean is "Your accusation against me is disruptive, not me!! Your accusation against me of saying I accused LightProof of vandalism is an improper accusation, instead of me agreeing with you I shouldn't have called LightProof a vandal."

I just want to edit the Picts page with my edits that are clearly non-OR without getting blocked again and without having to deal with this editor that had me blocked last time. Can you help?

Thanks, LightProof1995 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I walked away from the discussion on Mutt Lunker's talk page because I thought it had reached the point of diminishing returns. His conduct wasn't blockable and there was no point in trying to get the last word. Also, I have a fairly thick skin, which helps to recognise when it is time to walk away.
That said, you now have two choices: start an WP:RFC or accept that consensus is against you and walk away from the dispute. I do not know the first thing about Picts and haven't familiarised myself with the dispute, so I don't know if consensus is really against you, but if it is, you need to acknowledge that sometimes consensus can be against your position and accept it. Every editor has found himself in that position at some time or another and those who fail to recognise it end up sanctioned.
The alternative, as I said, is opening an RFC. Be advised, however, that continuing to make the contentious edits that other editors have an issue with is likely to lead to more blocks. —  Salvio giuliano 08:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Salvio! I was actually thinking of opening a discussion at the WP:OR noticeboard; is that still an option? Also I hope you get through whatever medical issues you're having all right! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I went ahead and opened a case at WP:ORN. Thanks for your advice :) LightProof1995 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

My sympathies

...with regard to whatever physical ailments you might now be facing. If I might say, our prayers here, in this household, are with you.

Otherwise, when time and energy permit, I would ask that you revisit the question of what appears to be a never-ending (permanent) block applied to User:Elizium23. The individual is question is no relation of mine, personally or professionally. I just happened upon mention of the matter while leaving a note to an esteemed logging editor to look in on my recent edits (which, as a non-logging editor, I frequently do). And it is not that I argue in any sense in sympathy for or acceptance of that editor's earlier statements. It is simply that I believe a block of indeterminate length over a very proscribed set of statements made (even if egregious) — that is, the utter "silencing" and "disappearing" of an individual here — is contrary to the spirit of this place.

Doing so is in essence a firm statement of impossibility, that WP disciplinary action might be rehabilitative—and on principle, with such a statement I must disagree. Please review, and apply a time-limited penalty that you believe is appropriate; arguably, if an editor does not learn a lesson in 6 mos or a year, then follow-on penalties can be doubled, and doubled again if necessary. But "life imprisonment" (i.e., lifetime exclusion) for a limited set of utterances? I hope not. It is simply too easy, and arguably unjust.

Cheers, an educator, and longstanding editor who no longer logs. 2601:246:C700:F5:A9DE:5AC2:9872:31B9 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, an indefinite block is not a whole life tariff; in fact, since blocks are supposed to be preventative, they are usually lifted as soon as it is shown that they are no longer necessary.
In this case, I am certainly open to lifting the block, but Elizium needs to show that he understands what the problems were that led to the block and also has to give credible assurances such conduct will not reoccur. To do so, he needs to post an unblock request, so that other administrators can review it and, if they are convinced, they can unblock – I have been known to unblock people I had blocked myself, when I found the request convincing.
He can also try to convince the community that the block was wrong to begin with, but, again, he needs to post an unblock request, because, personally, I am confident that this block is appropriate.
You see, this isn't a case of an editor losing his cool and doing something stupid, for which a temporary block may be appropriate, those comments betray an approach that is fundamentally incompatible with collegial editing and which isn't likely to change unless the editor realises what the problem is and chooses to do something about it, that's why the block is indefinite, because first we need him to show us that he intends to change his approach. —  Salvio giuliano 10:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sæward of Essex

Hi, and thanks for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sæward of Essex. Your closure rationale is rather terse, so could you shed some extra light on why you found the merge !votes (which were based on a very plain reading of the well-established WP:NBIO guideline's WP:BIOSPECIAL section) not persuasive? The way I read the discussion, the !keep votes were not addressing that part of the guideline at all. Ljleppan (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The short answer is that I felt that would have been a supervote.
The longer answer is that I did not simply close the discussion as keep, but rather as "keep without prejudice to merging", which, to me, means something different. I actually wondered whether I should close it as "no consensus between keep and merge", but thought that the former more accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion. I also asked myself whether I should relist the discussion, but thought that it would be unnecessary, considering that, rightly, there was no appetite for deletion and that merge discussions do not need an AfD. The thing is, the way I see it, both outcomes (keeping the article and merging it) could be argued for in a valid manner, because both outcomes relied on a valid reading of the relevant policy, since WP:BIOSPECIAL does not state that in cases of "failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria" we must "merge the article into a broader article providing context but rather that a merger is a possible outcome, [i]f neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article.
In this case, Sæward meets WP:ANYBIO and arguably WP:NPOL (or, at the very least, its spirit), so he is likely notable, although as you say, meeting those criteria does not necessarily guarantee an article. Meeting those criteria can be enough for inclusion provided a satisfying explanation is given why the subject qualifies for an article or, alternatively, can result in merging the material into a different article. As a closing administrator, it's not my place to decide whether the explanation that was provided is satisfying (or, in my opinion, I would be casting a supervote), rather I can only determine whether a reasonable editor may consider it satisfying, while its actual satisfyingness (which according to Wiktionary is word, apparently) is to be determined by those who take part in the discussion.
Which brings me back to my original point: both keeping the article and merging were acceptable results, both were in keeping with policy and, so, I could not discount any opinion or give some opinions less weight, which is why I closed it as a qualified keep, let's call it, because there was a consensus that the explanation given for keeping the article was satisfying and it was reasonable for commenters to consider it as such. Not to mention that one of the keep !voters explicitly said that he disagreed with the merge proposal, because he thought that the appropriate merge target was different, so even closing the discussion as merge would not have avoided a subsequent discussion to determine the target.
So, closing as keep without prejudice seemed the most appropriate result. —  Salvio giuliano 10:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond in length, I suppose I read the keep without prejudice... as keep, but I guess you can have a merge discussion if you really want to (i.e. keep > merge) rather than as don't outright delete, figure out elsewhere whether to keep as-is or merge (i.e. keep ~ merge). Also, sorry for making you type all that out, I only noticed the notice at the top of the page now. Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Ljleppan, don't worry. As an administrator I am expected to explain my decisions, so if I think I won't have the time or strength to explain myself, I will refrain from acting as an administrator. In this case, I thought my close was clear, but in hindsight I understand that it may not have been, so no need to apologise, especially in the light of the fact that the notice about my health has been there for a long time, since my health issues, unfortunately, are longstanding; then again, luckily they are not constant (even though they can be quite sudden), so it's there more as a way to say, if I don't respond, I am not ignoring you, rather than as a take it easy on me, because I am weak and frail. —  Salvio giuliano 12:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, good to hear it's not as bad as it could be. In any case, thanks for your replies and I do hope you have a relaxing weekend ahead of you :) Ljleppan (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops.. sorry

Accidentally reverted you on New York (state), my apologies. I need to get a confirmation box on those.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I've been known to do the same occasionally.. Best. —  Salvio giuliano 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Protection of The Fisherman (1931 film)

Could I ask you to elaborate on why you protected The Fisherman (1931 film)? I'm not seeing any history of disruption in the edit history. Someone boldly redirected it, the author boldly reverted that, and then it went to AfD. The author didn't try to recreate it against consensus after that (and even if they had, presumably a block would be a more appropriate tool if the disruption is coming from only a single user?). I don't have any particular interest in this article, I was just skimming the ecp log to try to get a better understanding of the protection process. Colin M (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The only reason I had was the one I gave: to prevent recreation, since the inexperienced user who created it in the first place didn't participate in the AfD and already reverted it once. Since the consensus was that the short film was not notable, the article should not be recreated unless there has been a new discussion or, alternatively, an experienced user has found enough reliable sources establishing its notability. After all, there is consensus that ECP can be used to prevent recreation of an article (that discussion applies to creation-protection, but the principle is the same and, so, the spirit of that rules applies, in my opinion). —  Salvio giuliano 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:ECP says Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. I'm not seeing how any of that applies. It goes on to say Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred which kind of seems like what happened here. If you want to compare it to creation protection, WP:SALT says it's for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. This page was recreated only once, and that recreation was done in good faith and was not out-of-process. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want, you can unprotect the page, I'm not going to. —  Salvio giuliano 21:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I did. I'm disappointed we weren't able to reach consensus on the correct application of policy here though. Colin M (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Kindly review Daniel Jeddman

It was a tough one week battle to retain the page Daniel Jeddman. I noticed the focus was more on me on the deletion talk page for Daniel Jeddman rather than the du one time in question. I still don’t understand why the page was deleted without consideration or rescue.


Please Admin, if you would delete a page I’ll kindly ask you with all indulgence to rectify carefully the cause of the matter before execution.


Helping fish out notable articles and posts to update Daniel Jeddman would have been considerate. As far as I’m concerned, he’s notable. They’re why I took it upon myself to create this.


I admire your eloquence. Blackan007 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion focused, partially, on you, but also on the article.
Specifically, I found that the consensus was that the article was promotional and, much more importantly, that Daniel Jeddman did not qualify for inclusion, because it was perceived he was not notable enough, under Wikipedia's definition of notability. To simplify, a topic is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. A person may be important and notable in the real world, without being wiki-notable, which seems to be the case here.
You say that, before deleting a page, we should try to rectify the cause and that's what policy requires also; the idea is that deletion is not cleanup. However, when the main problem is that the subject of the article is not notable, it's impossible to correct that problem, in that correcting it would require the existence of reliable, third-party sources that give significant coverage to it and here it wasn't the case.
So, in short, I am sorry, but I am not going to undelete the article. If you wish, you can ask for review at deletion review or you can wait to see if more reliable, third-party sources emerge and, then, try to recreate the article; in that case, the article could be userfied, to allow you to work on it. —  Salvio giuliano 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

DS, involved, AN

I noticed you bowed out of the discussion. After making a couple of comments about what constitutes vandalism in terms of edit-warring, I too dropped out and went on to easier things: CSD tends to be relaxing. I have to say sometimes I'm embarrassed to be an administrator. Looks like most folk are going to excuse DS's violations of policy because they think CC deserves whatever they got and more. Am I really that out of it? Take care and I hope you are safely tucked away for the night (I think, but am not sure, that you're British).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I am Italian actually. Mom was English, but Italy is where I grew up; anyway, yesterday I gracefully bowed out of the discussion, did something else for bit and then went to bed. I have found that the secret to keeping Wikipedia a fun hobby is knowing when to walk away from a discussion. That said, I am surprised as well that so many people find absolutely no fault with DS's conduct and am not entirely happy with the precedent being set here, and wonder whether I am indeed so out of touch with the prevailing sentiment of the community. Not the first time this has happened, but this time it was quite unexpected. —  Salvio giuliano 08:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've found that happen several times before this. I'm not sure I'm as good as you are at letting go. I finally unsubscribed to the thread so at least I wasn't reminded all the time of how many users were posting comments as the thread literally unraveled. Interestingly enough, it was going in the "right" direction and then switched, slowly at first, but gathered steam with many admins changing their minds. It reminded me of some RfAs that have gone from support to oppose in a hurry. In my view, it was an "end justifies the means" argument and CC became the punching bag bogeyman.
I haven't been to Italy in a while, but I enjoyed the countryside, the food, and looking at all the pretty people. I've always found parts of Europe more livable than the US.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you. I mean, sure, CC's edits were wrong and DS was right, as far as the underlying content dispute is concerned, but they could have asked another administrator to block CC and it would have been done very quickly. No need to do so themselves. But, well, in the end I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with some administrators whom I respect... Interestingly enough the discussion was closed as no consensus, in the end. So we may not be that out of touch, only a bit. It'll be interesting to see if this marks the beginning of a shift in the way the community interprets involvedness or if it was simply a blip.

Aside from that, I have been to the US twice and was in absolute awe of your national parks, but when it comes to cities, I'll be a bit of a flag-waver and confess that I do prefer (Western) Europe, really. I haven't been to the US long enough to make an informed judgment, but European cities feel more livable, I agree. One thing that surprised me was how much you depend on a car in the US. I have lived in a few different places here and felt I needed it so much less frequently. But, yeah, your nature is breathtaking, I can't think of many places that compare to what I saw in the Americas... —  Salvio giuliano 08:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion of U-Con article

Hi. I'm a member of the Science Fiction project and was planning to weigh in on the U-Con deletion discussion after I got word it was nominated for deletion, but then my dad fell and broke his knee and, well, there went my week. And then you called it even though very few people participated in the discussion. I was surprised the discussion went the way it did. That article had been there for a long time with many editors and I just spent about an hour looking for independent references and found a whole bunch, so the assertions that there are none are just bizarre to me. It's an influential event where many nationally and internationally famous games have been play tested as part of their development.

The request for deletion review process instructions say to start by asking the admin who deleted the article to reconsider, so here I am. Obviously since the page is deleted I can't see what the state of the article was at the time of the deletion, but I would like to do so and have the chance to invite the rest of the Science Fiction Project members to improve the article.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Netmouse (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

When the article was deleted, it was almost entirely unreferenced. It only had one source, this one. As such I am not simply going to undelete it; however, I can userfy the article o draftify it, if you prefer, so that you (and the other members of the Science Fiction Wikiproject) can work on it. —  Salvio giuliano 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Would either of those options preserve the History of edits others did? I would also like to see when the article was established, and who worked on the article previously, and notify them of the opportunity to preserve/restore it through improvement. Sometimes when I have had articles that include my own work nominated for deletion, I have been notified, while other times I have not. I don't know what was the case here. I'd also like to see what edits were made shortly before the nomination for deletion.
One article I had nominated for deletion had been mangled between when I created it and when it was nominated for deletion, so that the version nominated for deletion was clearly inferior. It's possible this article, similarly, had more references or stronger content in a previous version.
I've seen Wikipedia editors delete references if links are dead, even when the references were for a publication that once/also appeared in print as a paper publication. Editors in the deletion discussion I mentioned above clearly didn't believe a substantial printed article that had been cited even existed, because it was no longer available online for them to confirm; the magazine had gone out of business and was no longer maintaining the website. The Wayback machine confirmed the website used to exist, but didn't have the article in question archived. To delete or ignore a reference because it is not accessible online for free goes against WP:SOURCEACCESS but there is no requirement that editors engaged in a deletion discussion actually be familiar with policy, is there?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure draftifying an article preserves its history, so if you would do that, I'd be much obliged. Thanks for listening. Netmouse (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Netmouse, I have draftified the article; you can now find it at Draft:U-Con. Both userfying and draftifying preserve the history of the article, which is required for attribution, so you can notify those who have already worked on the article. I hope that with the new sources you find you can show notability. Best. —  Salvio giuliano 08:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Netmouse (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
aha, see, for instance, back in 2009 it had these three references:
  1. Carmen Tugulan, Michigan Union Attracts Gamers The Michigan Journal, November 8, 2005
  2. Gamers skip football, head to Union convention instead, The Michigan Daily, November 23, 1998
  3. Jenni Yachnin, Meeting builds gamers' abilities, The Michigan Daily, October 28, 1996
... even though they had suffered from linkrot, they were all still valid print publication references. But you can't see which content the citations support. Huh. I wonder if it would make sense to start using Wikimedia space to archive reference documents like this. I mean, you have the info storage bloat argument vs the info rot loss problem. It's tricky. But if other editors and admins are going to treat citations as non-existent because they aren't instantaneously available, that's an issue too.
And then, of course, there's the fact that someone deleted the entire Guest of Honor History, which had all the gaming industry connections in it and wikilinks that demonstrated those guests were notable (meaning they have their own articles), shortly before the convention article was nominated for deletion. That list was built over years by multiple editors per the article revision history. It's going to take some work to reconstruct this. Hmm.
Hey, question for you. From my perspective, the 19:48, 10 March 2023 edit by‎ Galobtter just looks like vandalism. Is there a way to complain about that behavior, above and beyond posting on their talk page?
A lot of work went into the article, and then they deleted that guest of honor list, which is a list that's very typical for convention articles, and not usually with individual citations for each line, though every year publications are produced that documented at the time who were the guests at any particular con (see also, List of Worldcon Guests of Honor. That guest list captures a lot about a convention's focus and history and significance, and before it was deleted the list in this article had a lot of wikilinks in it of value. And it looks like Galobtter just deleted it, with an illogical call to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as their excuse. Illogical in that the Guest of Honor list for a convention is not an indiscriminate list of random info - it is very relevant contextual history and often one of the main reasons people would pull up a convention article or website -- in order to be reminded who were the guests, so they can seek out the work they admired during a past event, or learn more about people who were at events they were unable to attend, and about their works.
As an historian, I lament every time a convention changes management and the new people in charge don't bother to maintain an historical record like that. That Wikipedia has been a place for such info has been a boon to history and the community alike. I'm really concerned that this editor might repeat this sort of action on other articles. I'm also concerned that Red-tailed hawk's copyvio revdel came just hours later -- and what is with the " 11:42, 10 March 2023‎ Intrepidgm" edit that is just gray and struck out? What action did that, and what user did that action? How can you tell? It looks like Intrepidgm was filling out the Guest list from right before the pandemic, a totally valid thing to have done, plus some other edits according to their revision comment. In their user:talk page I see they asked for help when their content was wiped, but clearly didn't get it from someone who understands that copying Guest names off a website to construct a guest list is totally standard practice. Or maybe because their revision was no longer available, so it was hard for anyone to give informed advice as to what was wrong with it.
It takes copying a whole phrase or sentence to have a copyright violation. Maybe Intrepidgm did that? I can't tell. Copyvio report says 53% of the edit (88 words) came from https://www.ucon-gaming.org/guest-of-honor. That's not too many words to be more or less just names and affiliations. But I can't assess the supposed violation because the revision is gray and struck out instead of available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1143907861 says it has been removed from public archives. What's up with that? I thought the whole point of having a public history of revisions was, er, maintaining a public history of revisions. And thus the appearance, at least, of the stance that if someone puts time and energy into editing an article, their work cannot be arbitrarily erased into oblivion. Netmouse (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Netmouse, I have checked the NewspaperArchive, available through the WP:Wikipedia Library, to see if there were archived copies of those articles, but I had no success; also, the The Michigan Daily seems to be a student publication, so I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable sources. In addition to that, I ran a quick check to see if there were other articles about U-Con indexed in that archive but could find none. So I'm still unconvinced that WP:GNG is met. I agree that a source should not be discounted entirely simply because it's no longer easily accessible, then again if the only sources talking about this conference are those that were already there, then I'm afraid it does not bode well for the notability of the conference... Fortunately, however, draft space is a place where an article can be worked on for a while, without fear of deletion, so if there are sources they can be found without too much urgency.
Also, as far as the removal of the list of the guests of honour is concerned, it's not really vandalism. You may disagree that it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE to add such a list, you may even think it's incredibly misguided to remove it, but it's a content matter, not a behavioural one and, also, I'm not really sure that list could be used to argue in favour of the conference's notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED.
Finally, Intrepidgm's edit was struck through per WP:REVDEL#1, as a blatant copyright violation. You can see who did it here. If you read WP:REVDEL you will see that there are limited circumstances where we will hide a revision, because leaving it visible could be problematic to the point that the cons of far outweigh the pros of transparency in that specific case (in certain cases, information can even be hidden from administrators as well, per WP:OS). —  Salvio giuliano 10:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
No, of course those old references are not the only references available. As I mentioned when I requested the undeletion, I had already found others, and had only spent a small amount of time doing so. I will add them when I get to rebuilding the article. Right now I'm still investigating the edit history to see what was deleted that should first be manually restored.
I'm still dubious that Intrepidgm's entire edit was a copyright violation. Especially given it is so strongly in U-Con's favor to have an up-to-date wikipedia article - There's really no reason to suppose having a copyright violation of 88 words in the edit history of an article would create a liability issue on Wikipedia's part that U-Con would be motivated to pursue. The motivation for striking the record is thus suspect.
I didn't mean to assert the notability of Guests of Honor is an argument for the notability of the convention itself. I totally agree with WP:NOTINHERITED. My comment about deleting the Guests list stems from my belief that Wikilinking across related notable topics in a contextually appropriate way is part of what makes a Wikipedia article useful.
Do you disagree?
Netmouse (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I don't disagree in principle. Looking at this version of the article, the list seems a tad too long, especially considering the introduction is somewhat short and does not really explain how this conference is important or significant in the gaming community, but that's certainly subjective. That's probably where the article should be improved, in my opinion: showing this convention's significance, because at the moment it looks like one of many unremarkable events.
As far as Intrepidgm's edit is concerned, I suggest you ask Nthep. Intrepidgm seems to have copied some content from https://www.ucon-gaming.org/guest-of-honor/, but copyright enforcement is not exactly my area of expertise and don't know if in this case simply undoing the edit would have been enough. I can tell you that revdeletion is supported by policy, but I can't tell you if it is in keeping with current practice, because that's an area I don't usually get involved in. —  Salvio giuliano 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Help, or suggestions needed

Hi Salvio, A few months ago , you worked on a report I filed, where I suspected that anothe ruser had been using multiple accounts to edit war their favored version into an article- [1].

You confirmed my suspicion and the user was warned, but you also noted that I was not blameless either, for edit warring with them.

That user is now back to that same article, repeatedly inserting material that I think is improper (as I explained in the talk page), and does not engage on the article's talk page. what should I do here, instead of reverting them and asking them to discuss it? Red Slapper (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, I have read your edit and Pirolam's and, at first glance, I see some problems with both versions. First of all, this is a WP:BLP and Wikipedia has strict rules about biographical content, so as not to do harm to living people. From a cursory examination, some of Pirolam's additions seem appropriate from a BLP standpoint.
For instance, where he changes "[i]n 2020, Yale University fired Lee from her voluntary medical faculty position for breaking the Goldwater rule in her evaluations of Alan Dershowitz and Trump" to "[i]n 2020, Yale University fired Lee from her voluntary medical faculty position for allegedly breaking the Goldwater rule in her speech regrading [sic] Alan Dershowitz and Trump", to me his version seems more in keeping with policy.
Then again, I think that writing "[i]n April 2017, Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the ethics of speaking about the dangers of Donald Trump" instead of "[i]n April 2017, Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the ethics of speaking about the mental health of Donald Trump" is less appropriate.
He also seems to be an WP:SPA, which you do not seem to be. He does not engage in discussions, you try to. What I find strange is that nobody else has edited the article in a while and, so, the recent edit history is basically you and he reverting each other... My suggestion, therefore, would be to try and follow WP:DR. Pick one of the possible methods and try to follow it. I confess that I was tempted to impose a partial block on Pirolam, to force him to discuss the issue, but I can't really justify blocking him and not you. Yes, you are trying to discuss the issue, but blocking only one party to an edit war risks being perceived as taking sides. —  Salvio giuliano 10:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks you, Salvio. I tried following your advice, went to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and posted a request for a 3rd opinion which was the first option suggested there. It was promptly removed by someone who pointed out that such an opinion can only be given if a thorough discussion has already taken place ([2]). Moving on to the next step, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard - it also states that "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN."
So when the other party refuses to engage on the talk page - this seems to be a catch-22 situation.
What do you suggest? Red Slapper (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Red Slapper, you are correct that when the other user does not discuss the issue with you it's more difficult to solve the content dispute, because our DR methods rest on the premise that all parties to a dispute will cooperate and try and hammer out a solution.
That said, first, you need to continue trying to discuss the issue. My advice would be to explain clearly on the talk page what your objections are to Pirolam's version, even if he doesn't engage. That is useful both because it shows you are trying to follow WP:DR and because it may be help those who are unfamiliar with the dispute to understand where you're coming from and what the issue may be. After all, failing to take part in dispute resolution – resorting to edit warring instead – is a behavioural matter and can lead to restrictions, which means that if you can prove that you have tried to discuss the edits and Pirolam ignored you, you can report him to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, depending on the case, asking for a block. But to do so, you should have clean hands, so to speak, or you risk to be sanctioned as well per WP:BOOMERANG.
In addition to that, if you can make a cogent case that Pirolam's version violates WP:BLP, you can start a thread at WP:BLPN, but as I said before, I'm not sure his version is necessarily worse than yours, in certain parts it seems to be at first glance, but in others it might be better. You can also try to leave a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or alternatively on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics, asking for input. But first you have to explain why you think your version is better or, at the very least, the other version is wrong. Then you can call attention to the dispute and hope that other editors will discuss the issue on the article's talk page, so that you can achieve a consensus even if the other editor does not want to discuss. —  Salvio giuliano 07:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't appreciate your close at all (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close review of Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022)

Discussion was started yesterday, and is active and ongoing. Your closure provided literally no examination of the discussion whatsoever - all it did was stop an ongoing, active discussion. You really shouldn't have done that. Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, you need consensus to overturn a close; if there is no consensus, then the original close stands, which is the result in this case. There was very little examination to add to that: there are many editors who feel very strongly that the original close was wrong and many editors who endorsed it or who thought that the discussion should not be reopened. And while it's true that the discussion was started yesterday, the way the discussion was going, it was highly unlikely that giving it more time would have led to a consensus, because that would have required a sudden influx of people voting to overturn the close to appear with nobody endorsing the close and I saw no indication that was going to happen. —  Salvio giuliano 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, there’s no way to know now. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I also object to the closing of the request for review. It has been only a day and a half since it was opened. Various editors spent about ten days discussing and writing that appeal, and it concerns an issue widely felt by the community. Æo (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there is a portion of the community that feels very strongly about this and that the appeal was crafted carefully, but – and I apologise for being blunt – it's time to let go. The discussion was going nowhere, people were rehashing the same arguments that had been put forth during the original discussion, there was badgering and the process was being bludgeoned to death. More than that, really, it was being bludgeoned to a bloody pulp... Leaving the discussion open would not have changed that and would only have led to more heat for a negligible amount of light, because however you look at it, no side has a majority big enough to form a consensus. —  Salvio giuliano 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
"however you look at it, no side has a majority big enough to form a consensus" that in and of itself is a point of contention, but whatever. Expecting the majority to just sit down and shut up is not going to go work, though, and the last months of backlash should be more than enough to demonstrate that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I think your close was a little hasty, and the discussion should have been allowed to proceed for longer than 35 hours. However, if you are unwilling to reopen the discussion, I would ask that you provide a longer explanation for why you see no consensus on the strength of the arguments, given that very few editors endorsing the close made an argument. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a reasonable request. Toa Nidhiki05 19:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I will provide a longer explanation, just give me a few minutes. —  Salvio giuliano 19:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I liked the shorter close better. I demand you shorten it! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Now don't start or the next time I'll demand you do the closing —  Salvio giuliano 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Move on

I really think it is time that we move on from this matter. We are at the point of WP:CARCASS where the issue about V22 has become entirely moot. People want to move on from this. Y'all save yourself the headaches. No point in beating a dead horse. We can go on and on about the flaws with Vector 2022, with the Vector 2022 close, with the close of the close review, etc. etc. but it is not a productive use of our time. We can revisit this issue in several months to a year. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for deleted article to be moved to draft space.

Hi @Salvio giuliano! I'd like to request for the article you deleted yesterday, 'Adam El Hagar' be moved back to draft space as I believe the subject is likely to become notable, so I would like to work on it/improve it for when the time comes. Thanks! Adamkel17 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Adamkel17,  Done. The article is now at Draft:Adam El Hagar. Best. —  Salvio giuliano 15:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
You're too fast for me. I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yosh2006.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@Salvio giulianoThank you so much! Really appreciate it. Adamkel17 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks a lot for watching those two pages you deleted, and re-G4'ing when needed. The user has always appeared to be here with an WP:ICHY mentality. Silikonz💬 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all thanks to the watchlist, wonderful invention that one. I have also left a warning on Гриша Андреасяан's talk page; if they persist, a block is next... —  Salvio giuliano 18:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I just noticed they've received two other handwritten messages too. Silikonz💬 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_98&oldid=1148711548"