User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 64

MalesAlwaysBest
Can I atleast have a semi page protection from the ip socks of MalesAlwaysBest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.8.119.132

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.159.154.175

Sopher99 (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have blocked 202.159.154.175. As before, disruption is not enough to warrant page protection, especially because there are "clean" IPs editing. For the moment, I'm afraid you'll have to report these IPs to AIV or SPI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ip socking on Battle of al-Qusayr (2013) has gotten pretty intense too. Sopher99 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 92.113.0.0/16 blocked for three days; if it doesn't work, I'll semi the page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to continue bothering you, but can you do a quick check to see if this is ChronicalUsual? He used coded Ips before. Sopher99 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The checkuser policy prevents me from linking a named account to an IP; anyway, that IP geolocates to the wrong continent... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The checkuser policy prevents me from linking a named account to an IP; anyway, that IP geolocates to the wrong continent... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * He keeps coming back. Recommend semi the al qusayr pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.113.175.201 Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Lastly please semi the timeline. Aside from MalesAlwaysBest's ip sock coming back today, it received repeated vandalism from a different ip just yesterday
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(from_May_2013)&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism of the timeline page ongoing. Sopher99 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sopher99 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; I apologise for my tardiness, but, erm, after reading your message, I got distracted and forgot... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks :) Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion again?
Hi, you recently blocked as a block-evading sock of. I queried whether might be similar but noted that they claimed to be a friend of Austereraj. The latter had been asking for help regarding how to create project assessment boxes on article talk pages, as well as contributing to similar articles and creating similarly dreadful new articles about places of learning and obscure villages.

Today, Naveenyadav999 edited within a few minutes of another newly-registered user - - at Smt. Shanti Devi College of Management & Technology. One edited the article and the other edited the assessment box (incorrectly). The article relates to a business that Austereraj is known to be associated with. Ssdcmt then created another crappy article based on a legal subject, Legal Aid Clinic in Haryana which is also an Austereraj trademark. And I note that the first three letters of their name may well stand for "Smt. Shanti Devi" and the next three could be "College of Management and Technology". Although I suspected at least meatpuppetry when I raised Naveenyadav999 here recently, I'm pretty sure now that this is socking and that Ssdcmt is yet another sock. What is worse, we now have even more appalling stubs from this person that are unlikely ever to be expanded but equally unlikely ever to be deleted! - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the CU tool,, &  are ✅ socks of . And even if we wanted to assume good faith and believe that they're friends, it would still be meatpuppetry. So I have just indeffed the lot. I'll now speedy the articles they created per WP:G5. As a final note,  is, technically speaking, ✅ as well, but I don't see him fitting the username pattern and he hasn't made any edits yet, so I have refrained from blocking; should he start editing the article, please let me know and I'll block him.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wondered about G5 but thought that since educational institutes/places of habitation etc are deemed to be be inherently notable (unfortunately, imo) then they'd survive it even though created by a blocked sock. I live and learn. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on the reviewing admin: the criterion allows sysops to delete all articles created by a person in violation of his block or ban, mentioning the fact that the article must not have been substantially edited by others but saying nothing of notability or importance; so, as I said, it's a matter of discretion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that discretion must come into it. Imagine two sysops who a RL lawyers: the one who acts as a defence lawyer would perhaps keep, while the one who acts as prosecution might not It's a shame the the two original articles ever survived but they did so because (a) they were not socking then and (b) they are colleges. Although the late lamented  did once nuke about 1,000 Indian village stubs. That took some balls! Thanks for doing the necessary and I'll let you know when the other account starts doing the usual, as I am pretty sure it will. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Syrianview returns
Special:Contributions/TarekSkgn88: compare this to this. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , &  are ✅ socks of each other; due to the IPs they were using, I cannot link them to  with any certainty, but it's a  match.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's this edit, which seems eerily similar to the ones above.  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And again: Special:Contributions/NancyFracer75. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , and  indeffed. Thanks and cheers.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Toxic
The atmosphere is plain poisonous! I cannot recall ever having an interaction with Mr Stradivarius. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my tardiness, Sit. That said, there is very little I can do about that diff: though unpleasant, it's not actionable... Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi! I still feel very uncomfortable about being topic banned. It's just a motivation killer. I've cooled off and doing other things elsewhere on Wikipedia. Do you think I will have a higher chance of success if I appeal the ban now? Or should I wait more? I'd love to get this over with before I go on holiday in about a week. Thanks. Nataev talk 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise to you as well for my tardiness. Anyway, I am sorry you feel so put off by my topic ban, but, as I've already said, at the time it was the only way I could see to stop you from violating BLP... That said, before lifting your restriction, I'd like to see at least a year of trouble-free editing and the community tend to have the same requirement.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, a year? Well, I think topic banning me for a year is unjustified. I hadn't engaged in any disputes before this last one. (Except when I started editing actively in the fall of 2011 I was banned for a day for engaging in an edit war. Back then I didn't know much about creating new articles.) If I was a disruptive editor in general, I'd have had much more incidents on Wikipedia. I personally think topic banning me was a bit too much. I don't think you read the whole discussion. You were not actively editing back then, just like now. You just came in and took a hasty decision. In reality I had many reasons to become angry. The guy had much at stake when he tried to get me banned. After all, people care about their own image. I was alarmed that people can easily write about themselves. Nobody writes about himself impartially. And I got involved in the discussion after the Jewish guy posted a message on my talk page. I mean, I don't care about this topic, not at all. In about a weak I'm going to take a long holiday. I just wanted to get this topic ban out of my way before I leave. Looks like it's not going to be easy. Nataev talk 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you will not respond any time soon. Aren't admins supposed to be a little more active? Anyhow, I'm going to unfollow this post. No need to respond. Nataev talk 08:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Recurring issues
Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war has once again been overrun by Deonis 2012 IPs and a French IP who continues to level tiresome personal attacks against me. Renewing the protection on the talkpage would be a much-needed respite. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies to you too; I have now semied the page for three weeks. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Deonis has now shifted his attention to Battle of Aleppo (2012–13): . Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

== ==

Hi. The relevant diffs have been provided by User:Regstuff on Sockpuppet investigations/Mailersonly. Meanwhile another sock account (Abhisheh192188) has been created trying to impersonate me (this user has impersonated User:Jayakrishnan.ks100 and User:TheRedPenOfDoom before). Could you have a look? &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 12:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Checked. The results are on the SPI page. Cheeers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another imposter and obvious sock . &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Indeffed and article semied. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just curious
Hi. I am wondering why you are redacting or removing text from the Time talk page (diff here) -- at least that is what it looks. This is also very confusing. Did I miss something? And, we have been dealing with a difficult editor in this article, so does this having something to do with that? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - never mind - I figured it out. Thanks anyway. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion " Kuwait Kerala Muslim Association (KKMA)"
Dear Salvio,

The page was created for a Social organisation called "Kuwait Kerala Muslim Association" established for aid and development of poor.

please google and check

Thanks and Regards Muneer
 * I'm sorry, but your articled will not be restored: while the main reason it was deleted is that the article was unambiguously promotional in nature and on Wikipedia that's not allowed, because, this being an encyclopaedia, we strive to use a neutral tone when writing articles, the organisation it was about does not appear to be notable enough to qualify for inclusion. Even if I userfied the article for you to work on, as soon as you move it back to article space, it'll be nominated for deletion again due to lack of notability. In brief, only notable subjects can have articles written about them; and, to be notable, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I don't want to give you false hopes: if you can't provide reliable sources to back up this organisation's notability, sadly, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine history case: Principle 3.1 Oppose vote
Hi Salvio:

I've copyedited the principle and I believe this now removes your concern. Roger Davies talk 06:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this edit and Tim made it,  Roger Davies  talk 06:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roger; I've now switched to support. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

MalesAlwaysBest
User:Firmgood at a guess based on the amount of blanking the account is doing on timeline articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aye: indeffed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Got another two based on their calling the sources propaganda user:Dateofrebirth & User:Antonio nn Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given this edit, I'd say that Antonio nn is innocent (being on a different continent), while Dateofrebirth is, but I don't feel confident enough to block yet (his UA is as common as dirt). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What would be egregious
We must not be looking at the same RFAR. If there is nothing in the Jmh649 RFAR that's egregious, what pray tell would be? How can unilaterally unblocking one of your best wiki buddies (Fladrif) and making a highly involved block (me) and making long series of involved protections and blocks not be egregious? Enquiring minds want to know. Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When I was using "egregious", I was referring to actions which are serious enough to justify banning, such as harassment or outing. Jmh649's actions, though serious and troubling (and I said as much on RFAR), do not rise to *that* level. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Salvio did you see the sweeping comment from "Boing! said Zebedee" "editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers, on both sides" or is it just me who should assume good faith everywhere? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (extrasolar planets)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (extrasolar planets). 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice requested!
Hey Salvio, cymru.lass here (on my alt account for editing from public computers, which is why you won't recognize the username). I wanted to get your advice about copyright problems in relation to a page I came across. The page in question is Herem (war or property. The articles reference section quotes copyrighted sources extensively, to the point that the quotes make up about half of the overall article length (rough estimate). All of the quotes are attributed properly, but my understanding of WP:QUOTE (and my review of the parts of WP:NFC that pertain to text) is that quotes of copyrighted material should never form such a substantial portion of a Wikipedia article, especially because many of the quotes are not being analyzed, but are there to simply support statements. In one case, 4 long quotations and 2 middling-length quotations are used to support a single sentence. ("Several scholars and commentators have characterized the wars of extermination as genocide.") I'm inclined to take out several of the quotes in the article, and strip several of the others down to a smaller size, but I thought I'd seek your advice first, since you probably have a better feel for copyright issues than I.

Also, I hope you're doing okay! I saw the message box at the top of your talkpage. Spera che ti sentirai meglio presto! (I hope I said that right!!) Cymru.lass in America (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Cymru.lass. How are you? Me, I'm feeling a little better, though, you know, these are the joys of growing, erm, more mature. Then again, as someone said, the only way not to grow old is to die young. Now, regarding the article, I entirely agree with your interpretation of WP:QUOTE and WP:NFC: that's way too much copyrighted material and someone should really go through the page with a chainsaw. As for the Italian part (wow, I didn't remember you could speak Italian  see the part about growing more mature ), it's almost correct: it should be "spero" (as "spera" is either he/she hopes or hope!).   Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm doing okay! I'm recovering from a car crash, but I'm getting better slowly. I'm glad you're getting better, too!
 * I think I'll take on the task of going through the article, because I'm already working on expanding the citations (some of them don't include all the authors' names, or publication dates, etc.). Might as well work on the quotes while I'm at it! Thanks for taking a look at it first—I always appreciate the advice.
 * And I don't speak Italian, unfortunately. Google Translate is a wonderful thing, though! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear you were involved in a car crash. I hope it was nothing serious and you have my best wishes! Re. automatic translators, I admit I don't trust them, ever since I found that the old babelfish thingy would translate "io sono, tu sei" as "I am, you six" ("sei" being Italian for both "six" and "you are") then again, Google Translate seems to be rather good, but I'm always afraid I might end up with my foot in my mouth ("Do you want fucking chips with it" is still a painful memory...)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When I can't figure out how to say something in Spanish, I usually go to Google Translate first, to get a rough sense of how I want to say it, but then I extensively cross-reference with my favorite dictionary. (Kind of like I use Wikipedia, I suppose!) I can understand how you'd be wary of machine translation, though, after that embarrassment! Don't worry, though, you're definitely not alone—I've had my fair share of feet in my mouth when it comes to language, too! On my first day of school in Chile, I called my teacher a weón, which means "douchebag" (except worse). That's the last time I listen to teenage boys for translation advice — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that was a bad idea. And I do understand how offensive "weón" is: in Italian, we use the same word (though in Italian it's "coglione") in the very same sense... Then again, I have to admit that I have made similar pranks when I was a teenager.  It's incredibly funny, ... Seriously, though, this conversation is making me think of English As She Is Spoke (love that book!).  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Deonis again and again
User:Lottary Wahen 2836971. Userpage is enough of a giveaway. Account also created Battle of Talkalakh (2013), which is comprised entirely of a patchwork of copyright violations (trademark Deonis style) and should be deleted. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's indeed our old friend; editor indeffed & article G5ed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See also 2013 Benghazi conflict, created by the sock account and largely maintained by IP-socks. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had seen that article, when I zapped the other one, but chose not to speedy it because it has been edited by "legit" editors (such as Skycycle) and, so, G5 no longer applies. You'll have to PROD it or send to AfD...  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR
This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2". Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Userfy of essay
Hi Salvio giuliano,

Thanks for taking the time to review the deletion nomination of Trivializing and misuse of Awards essay which has been 'userfied' and put on my user sub-page at your decision. Because you made no comments as to what you based your decision on I was wondering what they were because the essay simply reflected what the barnstar pages already says about awards:...for hard work and due diligence The essay also made an analogy to military service people who decline awards and asked users to consider this advent before giving an award away. Since the banner at the top of every essay says...
 * "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. ..."

...I don't understand why this particular essay was not allowed to stand where people can read it. Since it is now confined to a sub-page on a user page, it can no longer be linked to from the barnstar pages or any other WP page, and as such it will rarely if ever be read by anyone. The user who nominated the essay for deletion offered opinion but cited no policy violations or other important issues regarding essays. In essence all he/she said was I don't agree with the essay, and the opinion that most users don't agree with the essay, in so many words and referred to the essay as "weird". I feel the essay offers practical advice and unofficial guidelines. This is why I believe the essay should be allowed to stand with the many other Wikipedia essays that also give opinion and advice. I am hoping you will review the message of the essay one more time and reconsider its meaning. It was rather discouraging to see this particular essay singled out and nominated for deletion because a user happened to disagree with it. The two other users that came along some time later offered the same basic opinion -- they 'disagreed' with the essay and cited no policy violations or other important issues. Is this all it takes to have an essay removed? i.e. Difference of opinion from two or three users? If there is another reason behind your decision could you tell me what it is so I am not left wondering why this essay in particular was removed from WP mainspace? If it is within you power I am hoping you will reconsider these things and bring the essay back out into the light of day where users can read and consider its message.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fear you may be overemphasising the consequences of having an essay in your userspace: it doesn't mean that it can't be linked to from other pages (or, to be more precise, I'm not aware of any limitation of the sort). Personally, I believe that it may still be inserted in the "see also" section of WP:BARNSTAR and on other pages. Its current location is merely due to the fact that your essay does not reflect the current consensus of the community, it's not a way to make it disappear. That said, it was not my decision to userfy it; that was the consensus of those who participated in the MfD. Those discussions rarely attract much attention and, so, an admin has to close them even though only few people have commented. In this case, all those who did argued that your essay did not belong in project space and, so, I had very little choice. Also, the reason they expressed to justify their votes (namely that only essays which reflect the community's current attitude towards a topic belong in project space), while it may not have been clearly expressed in the text of the policy, is a very common outcome: I have seen it treated as a rule of thumb for a very long time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had always thought that consensus had to have some rational basis to it. In other words, if a group of two or three users wanted to use a picture of Santa Clause for Napoleon and no one else got around to objecting -- they could actually have their way?? Is this how WP works? Speaking of consensus, most of the Barnstars and project awards I have seen on user pages were given for hard work and sacrifices, so it would seem there is more of a consensus to do so. The Barnstar pages themselves say they are given away :...for hard work and due diligence so there is such a consensus. How does 'this' consensus get ignored? The nominating user never confirmed in any way that there was a consensus to hand out Barnstars like candy, or for any ole reason, nor did the other two users that came along much later. Had I known that a couple of opinions were all that was needed to have an essay deleted or 'userfied' I would have called for a poll, which WP allows for if handled in a neutral manner. Last, WP policy clearly states that user pages cannot be linked to from the main space, so for all practical purposes the essay has been condemned to solitary confinement in one user's sub-page. It doesn't do much for my faith in WP when an administrator and arbitrator is ignorant of basic user policy and ignores established consensus as exemplified on the Barnstar pages and in the essay banner itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, if a group of two or three users wanted to use a picture of Santa Clause for Napoleon and no one else got around to objecting -- they could actually have their way?? I don't think I really need to explain why your example is a fallacy. That said, as I assume you know, policy is not prescriptive, but rather descriptive, which means that when common practice differs from policy, it's the former which prevails (consuetudo antiquitus approbata and all that). For that, I still believe my conclusion was correct; if you think I erred, I'm afraid your only recourse is WP:DRV... By the way, that user pages cannot be linked to from the main space: the operative word, here, is "mainspace"; user pages can be linked to from project space. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Please accept my apologies, it was I who was ignorant of the distinction you noted regarding main and project space and linking to user pages. As I said, I was a little discouraged that because of a couple of opinions, the essay was singled out, among many essays that also give advice, and was 'userfied'. Not because of any policy violations, or slander or abusive content or some falsehood. IMO, there ought to be a stipulation than when a page is nominated for deletion (or userfy) and there are no policy violations, lies, etc, and it is only opinion being asserted, there should be a minimum amount of users required who share that opinion to make the nomination stick. The idea that two or three opinions can determine the fate of any page is a little unsettling. This is not fair. With this in mind I'm hoping you'll reconsider and if it's within your power, will reverse your ruling, as the essay offered good advice and only asked users to considered what the barnstar and project award pages asks of users. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)