User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 28

ANI discussion
I disagree with your decision to close discussion on the Surturz matter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you disagree? Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most certainly. I feel the Surturz issue isn't resolved. An admin deleting a page in a user's userspace is (as I see it) a kind of coverup and stifling of dissent; and I see your decision to close discussion as the same kind of thing but in a less obnoxious form. Further, I think there are bigger implications behind this matter which are unresolved yet which are still highly important to address. The underlying thorny issue, as I see it, is -- how to rein in errant administrators, or maybe, how to police the police. As a non-admin, while I've contributed here perhaps two years, I still feel like if I ever get into a conflict with an admin that I will lose and there nothing that I could do about it. I do not know where to try to get relief. I do not trust the other avenues since I doubt they are read much and I don't know how to use them. So I don't see it as fair. The issues touch on deeper issues, such as free speech, democracy, criticism, and what I am saying is that Wikipedia is a battleground at times, but that the battling is good in many situations (since it helps us think, it exposes us to opposing views) but it can be uncomfortable as well. So I hope the discussion is kept going.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone else reverted my closure and I'm not going to edit war to keep the discussion closed... My rationale for archiving the discussion was that the issue of the deleted userpage was being discussed at DRV and that there was nothing left for admins to do. The restoration of the page was the only thing the OP could obtain, in that case: an administrator is not going to be desysopped for deleting a page out of process (actually, in certain cases, he can be praised because he followed WP:IAR)... I understand your point and I sympathise with the way you feel (as a matter of fact, I chose to be open for recall), however that's not something that can be achieved through an ANI discussion. The issue of admin accountability is extremely sensitive and should not, in my opinion, be discussed in relation with a given incident, because there is always the risk that the discussion will get sidetracked, focussing on who was wrong and who was right in that particular instance. In my mind, I wasn't trying to silence those who wanted to criticise a fellow administrator; instead, I was closing a discussion that had exhausted its usefulness, before it could turn into a fully-fledged dramafest... However, as I've said, I shan't war to keep the discussion closed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I think you're being reasonable. And I think your outlook and motives are good. I don't know much about DRV but perhaps I should learn. Overall I think these issues are complex and I wish I had better answers. I can see the contrasting point of view too, that without some kind of censoring, Wikipedia could easily get out of control. What I've been thinking recently is somewhat along the lines of the US judicial system in the sense of a Miranda warning, that is, some obligation on the part of an administrator when doing something punitive, to inform the person being punished (eg block, deletion, etc) of a forum to go to where they can argue their case to have the penalty undone or disputed or whatever. Ideally I'd like a quick-stop courtroom with hopefully simple and fast procedures which dispensed some kind of justice (MacJustice? -- ok I'm an American and free to laugh at my nation's way of approaching things.). But how such a thing would be arranged -- that's beyond me. The ANI noticeboard is highly read and seems to be serving as a kind of court of sorts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of our templates already indicate how to appeal an admin's decision (for instance or /)... I agree, however, that Wikipedia is incredibly complicated: without Twinkle, for instance, it would take me ten minutes to nominate a page for deletion or report a user to AIV. But it gets worse: one of the most useful noticeboards for a newbie whose article has just been deleted would be WP:REFUND, but, in my opinion, it is quite arcane (and I'm somewhat surprised newbies actually manage to find it)... AN/ANI are useful places to stop by when you want something done quickly, but they are not suitable for a serene discussion, because threads are archived after 48/24 hrs without edits and because way too many discussions end up in drama...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

July 28 MFDs
Wanted to make sure you realized that the seven day period for MFDs started on July 28 will be up tomorrow, not today. Looks like everything started on July 27 was already closed due to speedy deletions, leaving a gap for closes needed today. --RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot. Thanks for letting me know. I've just reopened the two MfDs and restored the pages.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens. I once closed an entire day early at WP:TFD without even the excuse of a gap in the dates. By the way, there is a backlog at TFD, if you are looking for discussions to close. :) --RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, I've tried to concentrate on MfDs because I used to contribute there a lot as a non-admin and, so, I feel I'm not that likely to mess up (excluding the times I forget how to count to seven...). To me, TfDs look a little trickier, but I'll eventually get there...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Eduledge Page
Hi Salvio. I contributed a page named Eduledge Solutions - it is not an advertisement but a page that discuss about this company which develop unique e-learning solutions and has a very popular learning management system for businesses. In my knowledge, the page should be live.

Regards
 * I'm sorry, but your article read a bit like advertising copy, extolling the virtues and using marketing terms like "pioneering" and "as their clients who are highly satisfied with the corporate learning solutions" to describe your company. However, while the page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, as unambiguous promotion, there is also another problem: I'm not sure your company is notable enough... Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, has requirements which a given subject must meet to qualify for inclusion. While I invite you to read the policy, WP:N, in a nuthsell, this means that only subjects which have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources can have articles written about them. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Festivaldecineglobal
I've seen a lot of admins use if they felt the blocking admin should have mentioned issues other than the user name, but I can't recall ever seeing an admin add it themselves after blocking the user with a template that says Your username is the only reason for this block. I guess it's not that big of a deal, but as far as I recall the coiq template was created because there are certain admins who work UAA who almost never mention COI issues even when they are obvious, and we kept getting unblock requests from those users believing, as this user did, that all they needed to do was change their name to get unblocked. It's hard to blame them for thinking that when we have told them just that in bold letters. I have been using uw-softerblock if they weren't being too obnoxious with the spamming, it mentions COI but allows the user to simply create a new account. Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice! I usually use for that very reason; in this case, however, I was not sure it would be appropriate, as the username did not technically mention a group or organisation but a festival. So I believed a more generic template would be better... I guess this was overthinking on my part...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Clivekersey revised submission
Dear Sirs,

Please reconsider revised submission.

Thank you.

Kind regards.

EFF PLC


 * Assuming you refer to the article now located at User talk:Clivekersey, in my opinion, it looks much better. It's not written in a promotional way, although it still lacks reliable sources to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Furthermore, if you work for this company, you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, I must ask you to please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy regarding conflicts of interest. That said, Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, can only have articles about notable subjects — which, in short, in Wikijargon means the ones which have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources —. In this case, I'm not sure the company meets Wikipedia's requirements... But if you can find reliable, third-party sources proving this company's notability, then feel free to move the article to mainspace, as your user talk page should only be used as a venue to contact you and not as a sandbox. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
Salvio, I've sent you an e-mail. :D --Onewhohelps (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied to your reply. :D --Onewhohelps (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just checked my mail, but I received nothing... Could you, please, send it again? Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI
As one of the adopters of User:Onewhohelps I wanted to draw your attention to a case of labeling an edit as Vandalism when it is not. is the "reverting vandalism manually". I observe that for a extremely young editor (2 days) this editor is using the reversion toolset quite frequently. I have already dropped an explanation on their talk page explaining the reasoning for the changes, where I was using info from, and a link to WP:NOTVAND. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. has expressed interest in fighting vandalism and that's why they're reverting so often. And, barring the occasional error, they seem to be doing a good job... In this case, however, they made an error, but I'm sure they made it with the best intentions; nonetheless, I'm sorry.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, you're most kind! It's always very good when you feel that what you do is appreciated.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops
Don't worry for that. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi! Just noticed you still have a userbox link to your old editor review. I just wanted to suggest, maybe you might want to go for a Administrator review? I think you're doing a great job btw. -- &oelig; &trade; 13:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for the kind word and for the advice; I must admit I wasn't aware of that noticeboard... However, I like the idea of receiving feedback on my admin actions and I'd be happy to go for it! Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Asters (Schevchenko, Didkovsky and Partners)
I see you moved this article at some point; it was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, but since you had previously worked on it, I declined to delete it, assuming your move indicated you thought it not eligible for A7. I have considerable doubts about the article though, and if nobody else nominates it for AfD, I probably shall. I gave some advice on improving it at User talk:Annniez, & perhaps your advice there would be welcome also.  DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I only fixed Anniez's page move, because she had moved her talk page to mainspace, when moving the article. I chose not to delete the page, however, because I'm not really sure it meets A7, because, just as you felt, the author seemed to imply Asters is a major law firm, so I wanted to see what another admin would do. It was not really an indication I considered the article not eligible for A7, it's just that I had some doubts and preferred to err on the side of caution. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Chili powder
Thanks for taking care of the actual move off of the unanimous move request.

The only issue is that the former Talk:Chili powder, which you deleted to make way for the move, actually contained some previous discussion that explained why the page was at the variant "chile" spelling. Long story short, an editor insistently force through a split of the article to differentiate between chili powder that's pure chili pepper (saying those should be at "chile powder") and ones that are blends (at "chili powder"). Later discussion lead to the former being moved to "powdered chile" before common sense prevailed and they were merged. (I they're used same, and they are, there's no need for separate pages.) The only downside of that was the combined article was put at the uncommon "chile powder" spelling, which has now been fixed with the latest move.

As the former content of Talk:Chili powder, along with the current version (as well as I believe a couple of others) is needed to fully understand the backdrop of all these moves, I'm wondering if it can't be undeleted and moved to an archive page of the current talk page. It would benefit editors and prevent potential future, unproductive discussion retreading the same territory. Thanks for the consideration. oknazevad (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page I deleted only consisted of a redirect to Talk:Chili powder blend; I've done a bit of looking around and I see that that page contains the various bits of info you refer to and I assume it got lost when Chili powder blend and Chile powder were merged. I'd be glad to do a history merge of the two pages, but I'd rather first receive a confirmation that my understanding is correct and that I'm not about to screw up...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right; the conversations I was thinking if were at Talk:Chili powder blend, which I just manually moved to Talk:Chili powder/Archive 1. Now I just got to figure out the archive headers. Thanks.oknazevad (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe might be what you're looking for ...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just did what I always do: copied it from Talk:Coca-Cola and set the counter, (though I don't remember where I got it from to put there in the first place. The talk page of the American Civil War, I think.) Thanks for all the help. oknazevad (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I took it from Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher... And you're most welcome!  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk page trolling
Rangeblock and/or protection required? Super Mario Man  23:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two more... Super Mario Man  23:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had already gone to bed, unfortunately... Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page however! You, Pstanton and Wikipelli have been most kind! Salvio  Let's talk about it! 06:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Even for user space. wp is not a blog
Hello Salvio. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cs32en/Content/Personal/911. I'm looking at this page as a precendent for bloggy material on userpages. I see a little "keep per UP" and "delete and per UP" and likely WP:UP could be clarified. Could you please say something about why the close was as it was. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right some of the !votes were just WP:VAGUEWAVEs; however, many of them were very well argued. I considered 's rationale as the most compelling for keeping the page and it was that the page was very mild and reasonable in its presentation, and it serve[d] an acceptable function in allowing an editor to share their experiences, observations, interests and values with others who may be interested, without leaning into advocacy or soapboxing. There's nothing wrong with allowing editors to use a small amount of space in this manner so that they can get to know each other better. On the other hand, both and  made a very good case for deletion. The former indicated a policy and a guideline (WP:NOTBLOG and WP:UP - albeit the shortcut, in this case, is rather inappropriate) and explained why, in his opinion, the page fell afoul thereof: "no extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", and no "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project". I don't understand how this page benefits the project, and I don't see how if falls within the narrow restrictions allowing some personal info in userspace. Same goes for the latter, who, though not explicitly, was clearly referring to the very same concept, when he argued using userspace for extensive discussion of issues not related to Wikipedia is not allowed, nor is using Wikipedia to promote anything. A brief statement of a user's views regarding 9/11 would probably be OK, but this goes further than that - not only is it not brief but it includes arguments in favour of those views.. In brief, in the end, both sides, although sometimes implicitly, were referring to the same guideline: use of one's userspace for extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons and extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article is inappropriate and should be avoided. The keep !voters argued, basically, that the page was useful for collaboration and was not "extensive" (saying it was short, very mild and reasonable and would help to get to know the user better); the delete !voters, on the contrary, pointed out that this user's statement was not brief, but rather looked more like a blog entry, was entirely unrelated to Wikipedia and that they failed to see how it could be useful for building the encyclopaedia. The rough consensus emerging was that the !votes in favour of deletion were prevailing, were rooted in policy and, in my opinion as the closing admin, were stronger. So, I concluded I should close the discussion as delete.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cindy Williamson
An editor finally MOVEd my article Cindy Williamson. However, another editor — Amatulic — apparently summarily deleted the article with the note "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)"

This was surprising because I had a number of links showing articles and websites that referred to Cindy's work, and showed examples.

I really am in a learning mode with this stuff, and want to get it right. I've started another version at Forcrist/Cindy_Williamson. However, I can't figure out how to get the article back so I can make revisions and improvements. I would, of course, hate to start to do this with a blank sheet.

Thanks ahead of time for any actions you take or advice you care to give.

Warmly, Don Huntington (Forcrist (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

The following is our previous discussions. Is this appropriate?

Hi again,

(Is this the best way to communicate with you?)

I have read (and reread) the literature about how to do a page, and have created my first effort so that it seems to conform to the guidelines. Is there anything else I can do to encourage the gate-keepers to implement the MOVE tab? I have a number of good articles that will be nice contributions to Wikipedia that I will begin working on as soon as the powers-that-be bestow the honor of adding me to the ranks of qualified writers. Do you have any suggestions? (Thanks ahead of time for any response.) Thanks User talk:Forcrist (Forcrist (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for the helpful feedback on my User:Forcrist page. I read the links with interest. I have spent considerable time trying to become familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, procedures, and standards but it was great to have you point me to some of these resources. Thanks for taking the time. Most of the things I read verified that the article is in conformance with Wikipedia expectations. The one thing that jumped out at me is the notability requirement. I'm going to go back and revisit the article from that point-of-view. Cindy Williamson is certainly worthy of an article. I will try to indicate that in the article.

Thanks again for the help, your note, and this level of wonderful support. Forcrist (Don Huntington)
 * I was just glad to be of help. Once your page is ready, before moving it to the article namespace, basically — for ease of discussion — making it a "proper" Wikipedia article, you can also ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK, where an experienced user will review your article and help you. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that. I imagine I just edit the document and stick in the link. Thanks User talk:Forcrist

E-mail
Hi Salvio, I've sent you an e-mail. :J -Onewhohelps (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've replied again. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

About my topic ban
Hi,

Does the topic bans extend to page 'Slavery' too?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति  Humour Thisthat2011  09:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your topic ban extends to edits and not to articles, actually. You cannot make any India-related edit, until it expires (this, of course, makes it impossible for you to edit a page like Varna (Hinduism), for example, because all edits to such an article would be India-related, but this doesn't change the fact that the focus of your sanction are your edits). So, in short, you can edit Slavery, provided your edit is not related to India (slavery in India, by Indians or of Indians et cetera). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for reply.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति  Humour Thisthat2011  15:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the ban duration over yet?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति  Humour Thisthat2011  14:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
--Onewhohelps (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Function
Hi Salvio, I'm considering requesting Rollback features, do you think I'm ready or should I wait a bit? If not when would be an appropriate time to request?

I use Twinkle, but sometimes when I edit at one of my two houses (aren't I rich?) the internet is slow (aren't I poor) and Twinkle times out and all in all it's annoying to fix. -- Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed your contributions, I believe you're ready now and, so, I'm about to grant you this flag.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this will greatly assist my vandal fighting. -- Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)