User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 10

WP:BLP Allegations against PhanuelB
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion [ Here] that involves you. PhanuelB (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your notification on Monkeynuts54
Thanks for the heads-up! The name, in light of this information, appears harmless and in good faith, so I let the user know it's not a problem. Whether they intend to continue editing in whatever capacity based on these unrelated affairs is up to them, I suppose. - Vianello (Talk) 20:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Skitrirun - New Articles
Hi Salvio,

Being new to this I would appreciate some advice. I've created 3 new articles, but all of them have been marked for speedy deletion and all by the same user (who seems to have bit of a track record for speedy deletions). Unfortunately the user in question has not given any reasons for the speedy deletions and interestingly other users have since edited the pages with one user considering 2 of the pages as possibly notable. Also, the pages I've created are similar (if not moe informative) to others I've seen that are established and widely accepted, which to me does question consistency within Wikipedia.

Therefore I welcome any suggestions on how the pages could be improved to make them more acceptable, whether that means removing inappropriate elements or adding more notable details and references. I am in the midst of trying to obtain more verifiable references, but please appreciate that this will take time (as I need to check with the sources concerned). Likewise I can't upload any associated images yet to support the articles because of my new membership status. I hope you don't mind the call for help, but you did post the welcome message on my talk page and I notice that you are an adopter.

Many thanks/Grazie mille!

Skitrirun (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Hello. Well, I've taken a look at the articles you created and they were tagged for speedy deletion, because the new page patroller who read them thought that you hadn't really specified why those clubs are important or significant. However, don't worry, an admin has reviewed those requests and has declined them. Mind you, please: this doesn't mean that your articles can't be deleted; it only means that, if someone thinks they don't belong on Wikipedia, they have to take a longer route, which involves a weeklong community discussion (called an WP:AFD, that is to say "articles for discussion").
 * A very important thing you have to remember, however, is that if an article you wrote has been tagged for deletion, this doesn't reflect on you as a contributor; I mean, that isn't to say that your contributions here are not appreciated!
 * Wikipedia chose to give itself some rules, to decide what qualifies for inclusion and what doesn't, in order not to become a repository of bits of trivia or of garage bands... For that reason, only articles on things that are considered notable can be included in Wikipedia. The rule of thumb is that if something has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources it qualifies for inclusion; there are, however, some particular criteria for particular categories of things, such as, for instance, organisations (they are listed here).
 * At the moment, only one article has been taken to AFD (that is to say that the community has been called upon to decide whether it meets our criteria or not); so the first thing you might do is find reliable sources to help establish that club's notability... If you need further help or if you think I wasn't clear enough, feel free to ask more questions. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I'm glad I provided no reason not to support ;-). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL and congrats! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Iranians
I assume that you have warned the other user as well…? If not, please explain why when he is just as responsible (if not more so because the source he has provided actually proves what I say). A war is between two people; please confirm you acknowledge this. 78.150.23.206 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I haven't yet, because I'm sure he's aware of the 3-revert rule; whereas, since I didn't know whether or not you were aware of the rule, I wanted to make sure you knew that you can't revert more than three times, so that you won't be blocked out of the blue (that is to say I was trying to help and not to take sides). My suggestion is to start discussing the issue on the talk page and, then, if it doesn't help, try a third opinion or mediation (WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM). Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I am aware of it and will consider my options should it continue. 78.150.23.206 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt
SERIOUSLY DOODER. YOU'RE ITALIAN. YOU DON'T KNOW STEVE LIKE I DO. STOP CHANGING MY EDITS. SENSAI SEAGAL TOLD ME TO MAKE THE EDITS SO THEY REFLECT HIS TRUE ZEN. STOP MONITORING HIS PAGE YOU NON-ZEN WARRIOR.

REGARDS,

D. PAYNE MINISTER CHURCH OF SEAGAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.194.203 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't; gotta earn my dark side salary... Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Movement of 1977
Many thanks for your help...--Presbite (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:User page reverting
Many thanks for the IP reverting on my user page earlier today. Much appreciated. ;) Regards, Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article marked for speady deletion (Shoesandbags)
Please give me further information as to what is the problem with the article or which bits should I rewrite as I can not see why this article should be deleted. I have followed the guidelines of other articles about the same subject such as Matches fashion and Net-A-Porter on wikipedia and of course wikipedias own guidelines. My wording of the article is the same as it appears in publications out of my control. Please advise as to what do I need to change in the article if at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoesandbags (talk • contribs)
 * Well, first of all, the first thing that you ought to read is FAQ/Organizations. There, most of your questions can be answered.
 * However, in short, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a means of promotion, I'm sorry. Promotional material is not accepted either in articles or in your userpace. Your userpage keeps being deleted because it is deemed promotional and, therefore, deleted under criterion G11 of the rules regarding speedy deletions.
 * That said, as I've already told you, I'd invite you to read the FAQ. If you have further questions or if there's something unclear there, you're welcome to come back and ask me anything you need. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Azerbaijan
Do you want me to paint you an effing picture of the edit I am requesting? What part exactly of my request is ambiguous in the least ? Please do tell. Or don't. Just leave it as it is. Thank you for preventing me from improving Wikipedia. --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to prevent you from improving the 'pedia; however, when one takes a cursory look at the various captions, a full stop may go unnoticed; since you have clearly identified where the problem lies, it could save other people some work if you could just say: it's the third photo from the top or whatever. That would make it easier for us to help you and make Wikipedia better. It's not like I'm an evil bureaucrat who turns down your application due to a scrivener's error. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would amount to painting you a picture of the edit, that's exactly what I meant. Describing that edit would take more time than doing the edit itself. What is so hard for you to understand? Just go through the article and remove the erroneous full stops. A trained dog could do that edit without further instructions. Ok, I'm heading out now, laughing this idiocy off with a refined 1992 Auchroisk. Too stupid. Just too stupid. --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prosit. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

hijacked
sorry about the daily show edit as well as the edit of one or more pages. while at a locacl library i forgot to log out as i left. and as you may guess the vandal quickly took advantage of that and commited the hanus crimes against knowledge my sincerest appologies.

-the real fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by The real fact (talk • contribs)
 * It was no big deal, don't worry; vandalism can be quickly undone!
 * That said, since we have no way to know who was operating your account at any given time, my personal suggestion would be to keep an eye out for vandals trying to hijack your account or you might end up blocked even if you're innocent... Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My RFA
I changed my answer to question 1, please reconsider your vote.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your taking onboard our criticism, which is a sign of maturity, I don't think I'll be changing my !vote, because 1) if you pass your RFA, you'll be able to use your tools in those areas, even though you now admit those same areas are no longer among your interests here and 2) because your inexperience in admin-related areas is not limited to WP:AIV and WP:UAA, but is more widespread, with the commendable exception of WP:ANI. My unrequested suggestion would be to concentrate on admin-related areas to get the feel of things there (for instance, admins at WP:UAA are running an experiment regarding clerking; you could take part in it). Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Me again
Wow this is getting to be a bit of a habit but I need your advice again... I am absolutely flummoxed (word of the day!) by UK Teenage Pregnancy Policy... It's unclear whether or not the article is about an actual official policy in the United Kingdom, a review/critique of such a policy or an article about an evaluation of "the recent guidance papers published by the DfEF" or a summary of a report on teenage pregnancy... The only way I can see this article being appropriate if it were about an official policy. The first sentence of the article's lead says the article "evaluates the government’s teenage pregnancy policy since 1999." However, most of the article is a summary of a report made by the Social Exclusion Unit (now called the Social Exclusion Task Force). I've done a bit to clean up the article, but I don't know what to do with it now. Name change to SEU teenage pregnancy policy (but would it be notable)? AfD? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tonight I'm extremely tired (and, unfortunately, I expect I'll be just as tired tomorrow night — I'm serving on the ground jury at a three-day show jumping competition) and I'm at my wit's end; I'm sorry, but it'll take me a while to respond to your query; please, do not think I'm ignoring you... Too many horses: this competition is really wearing me out...   Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all good Have fun! I'll talk to you when you're better rested. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 18:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm back.
 * I mostly agree with you; reading the lead, I thought I was about to read an essay, something violating WP:OR, but, from what I can see, the rest of the article, dealing with the 1999 SEU report on teenage pregnancy, seems not to be original research, althogh it's tragically lacking in references (even if you added a few, making the article a bit better)... CSD is inappropriate in this case, as no criterion applies; you could PROD the article, which is the best way to go, when unsure if something fits into the CSD criteria or not. However, I don't think the article should be deleted; in my opinion, it would be better to extensively trim it down and then propose a merger with Teenage pregnancy and sexual health in the United Kingdom... Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would be reluctant to list it for deletion because it's good information, but then again it is mostly about one report. So should I propose a merge? Oh, speaking of merges, I've proposed merges before (can't remember what pages though...), and it seems like just using the Merge to and Merge from tags doesn't really attract any discussion. Is there some step I've been missing, like a general merge proposal page? Thanks! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. How were the horses?
 * Is way too many an acceptable answer? Over the week-end I watched more than six hundreds horses jump... Well, at least I got paid...
 * Seriously, I must admit that I've never proposed a merger, except during an AFD, so my experience here is somewhat limited; however, there is an optional step during a merging discussion, that is to say to list the article here, that might increase participation. I don't know how successful it can be, though. In this case, I think a merger would be useful, because some material can be salvaged and can make Teenage pregnancy and sexual health in the United Kingdom more thorough, even if it only deals with a single report.
 * Then again, AFD is "article for discussion" and not "deletion", so it wouldn't be that appropriate to also try that approach... Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 19:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll trim the article down and propose a merger as soon as I get the chance. Right now, I'm buried in classwork... --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message
Dear Salvio

Thanks for the welcome message!

Cheers

KongOlavKonfekt --KongOlavKonfekt (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a terrible pun, I know, but you're welcome.
 * I hope you'll have fun here; and, should you need anything, feel free to ping me! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the welcome. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your great welcome message. I am slowly starting to learn this system. This work fits in with my larger goal, but I need to figure out how to fit them together. --Peterbbishop (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

two usernames
I blocked Tpizzle20; someone else took care of CERI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)