User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 9

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

hi
ok thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilija.milcinoski (talk • contribs)
 * You're welcome. As I've written on your talk page, you should first read WP:BOT. To ask for permission to run a bot, you should apply here. However, my advice would be to wait for a bit, even though I like your enthusiasm, since I think you're a tad inexperienced at the moment. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A Marshall Mackenzie
Thank you Salvio for your message. I have since discovered that A Marshall Mackenzie has a Wikipedia page Alexander Marshall Mackenzie which I had not checked out when I tried to set up a new page. Mea culpa (baby Wikipedian! still learning the ropes of protocol). So, it can be deleted. I would do this myself, but I have no idea how to go about it. Regards, --Jane Cartney (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. Could you leave me a  talkback on my page please.
 * Hi! Well, since the article is your userspace draft, you can paste db-u1 there and a kind admin will come along and delete it.
 * If you need any further help, you're always welcome here! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you want to indicate the code of a template, without showing it as a template, use a tl or tlx: talkback becomes talkback.   Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like the page has already gone. --Jane Cartney (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Welcome
Hello Salvio, thank you very much for your advice and links; they will definitely come in handy as I'm still trying to get to grips with everything. And I've made sure that Wikipedia will prompt me if I leave the edit summary blank again. Thank you! --AppleSauceTrauma (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good idea (I did that too, because I tended to forget about it just until I had pressed the save page button...)! I hope you have fun on Wikipedia and if you need anything, you're always welcome on my talk page! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken a very cursory look at your draft and I don't want you to think I'm a spoilsport, but I'd like to point you to our notability criteria for bands, before you move the article to the mainspace and bump into a new page patroller who tags your article for deletion, which can be extremely unpleasant. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking over it and I don't think you're a spoilsport. Instead I'd like to thank you for pointing that out rather than letting me finish putting together the article only to find that it's been deleted. I hope it's okay to ask you, would atleast 5 reviews from music related websites count as "non-trivial published works"? And I think I'll become an "adoptee" so I won't be bombarding you with questions. --AppleSauceTrauma (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends. If those website are blogs, unfortunately, as they don't count as reliable sources, the band wouldn't be considered notable. If, on the contrary, they're reliable sources, then, in my opinion, the band should be considered notable enough for inclusion. And, aside from that, the band should have received significant coverage (which excludes mentions in passing, for instance). So at the moment I'm unable to answer your question, but if those websites are considered reliable sources, I'd lean towards saying it's notable.
 * If you don't know whether or not those sources are considered reliable, apart from asking me, you can go here — a noticeboard where experienced users can help you determine the reliability of a source —. Furthermore, when your article is completed, you can go here, a different noticeboard, to receive feedback on your article before moving it to mainspace. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have a closer look at the websites and I will definitely be using the noticeboards and I must thank you for guiding me towards them. Oh, and an additional thank you for being so helpful! --AppleSauceTrauma (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure: that's what WikiGryphons are for... I remember how confusing Wikipedia was for me, when I started editing here: a mare magnum of policies, guidelines and weird markup.  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's strange to think that I've used wikipedia for so many years without really thinking that there was a whole community behind it and it's good to know that not all of the internet is made up of rude and slightly scary people. --AppleSauceTrauma (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thanks for your support at the RFPP Clerking discussion. I want to figure out the next steps. Dank is interested in clerking in general, not so involved in RFPP, and has other proposals (UAA/CSD) on his plate. So it may not be best to continue to refine this on his talk page (although I'm happy to if he doesn't mind). I'm thinking that Village_pump_(idea_lab) is a good place to move, although I'd like to work out some kinks first (e.g. who appoints clerks, how long, do we need draft instruction before getting approval, etc.) I'm thinking of moving this discussion to a user subpage, address some issues, then move on to VP. What do you think? Are you interested in discussing this further?-- SPhilbrick  T  19:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep! I'd be really interested; it's a good way to help reduce administrative backlogs, without handing bits too liberally and also to make sure that we see an admin wannabe (not intended in an offensive way) can be trusted with the mop and that he's sound in judgement. That said, a subpage could be created where all interested can discuss, to have a first draft to propose to the community for further discussion. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll take a crack at it tomorrow, as I am overdue on some work assignments at the moment.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted my new user page
Hi, I noticed you deleted my new user page but I'm not sure why. I see you have one. Is it not allowed for me? Thanks, I'm just trying to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathiedsquared (talk • contribs)
 * I left a note on your talk page: links such as this one are inappropriate, as they are considered spam. You're welcome to have a userpage, of course, and you can talk about your interests and your job, but you should try to avoid advertising your business concern. After all, we're mainly here to write an encyclopaedia. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

First Data carreers section
Hi Salvio,

not sure if you remember me, I manage the talent acquisition dept at first data. You were helping me update correctly our wikipedia page, and told me to post a question in the conversation tab? is that the discussion tab? how long does it usually take for people to determine whether or not it is ok to post the links to our official career page on the different professional networks?

Regards,

CArlos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaenzs (talk • contribs)


 * Yep, I remember you.
 * Actually, the talk page is located here; you should copy this template there request edit and then explain what you'd like to insert in the article and why. Another editor will be along and give you an answer. I've never tried that method, so I can't say how long it'll take, but you'll receive an answer. This way, you can receive third-party feedback, because, as I think I've already told you, you're in a situation of conflict of interest. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvio... I havent been able to figure this out quite yet. What exactly is the template I need to use? When clicking on the link I find the explanation but not the template itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaenzs (talk • contribs)
 * You should paste " ". That automatically becomes the template, once you click "save the page".  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome
Hi, thanks a lot for the welcome you gave me! Lots of those links will probably be useful, and a few already were. Hopefully I can be useful because I found quite a few pages I would like to help improve. --Jwrwac964710 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you'll have fun editing and, if you need anything, my talk page is always open!  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RFPP Clerkship Discussion
I've just started, but here's a draft. I may move it to Dank's new page, we'll see. -- SPhilbrick  T  01:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm off to read it, now. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What the eye doesn't see...
Actually that's an excellent adage and most apt. There's another one from around Texas too: When one gets sand kicked in his face a second time, he doesn't just lie there.    Guess I like yours better.  Austex •  Talk  02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You made me LOL; guess I'm not very well versed in Texan adages...
 * Seriously, my point was (and is) that Nineteen has been indeffed and, so, the only place where he can write anything is his talk page; he can't edit any articles or talk pages you've edited. Basically, he is forced to avoid you.
 * To read what his remark about you, you'd have to go to his talk page; and it's very easy to tell that reading it annoys you... So, the best way to avoid being annoyed is to avoid going to his talk page... That was all my point...
 * This is rather banal, now that I read it again... Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 12:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought you would enjoy that. But actually, your point makes perfect sense. I really do need to avoid his page. I don't see it I won't worry about it. I glanced at it once and saw, to my surprise, that he was STILL rehashing the previous his accusataions about me and how unfair it is that he is blocked.  He doesn't "get it" that this continued attack is precisely what caused him the problem in the first place. I seriously dread the day he eventually gets unblocked because I know who he's coming after!  He needs to get over it but apears to hold grudges a long, long time.   Meanwhile I have moved on, and will stay away from his site.  Your adage was most apt.  Austex  •  Talk  00:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * PS- how do you do that really cool thing above where when I go to edit it says "Welcome Austex" ??? How cool is that?   Austex  •  Talk  00:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first you need to create User talk:Austex/Editnotice; then, you can adapt and paste there the following code:


 * If, on the contrary, you're only interested in the "welcome Austex", it's that does the trick...  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 00:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the source of my contribution
hello, dear salvio. Just a little message for tell you that my source of my article was not as spam, because it is my blog and i post on it my "classifiche" (sorry for my awful italian^^). So, really, the source of the page "longevity of italian prime minister" come from my blog.

Would you accept to let this source appears again?

(in case of "no" answer, it's not a problem, i admit frankly that it was a temptation to growht my visitors stats)

bon giorno a tu :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingane (talk • contribs)
 * Ciao Lingane! Actually, even if your intention was not to spam your blog, that website wouldn't have been an acceptable source, because, under WP:SPS, self-published material is not considered reliable enough to meet our requirements regarding verifiability. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Thanks for your mediation at Operation Bluestar. Maybe you may consider another hot potatoe here. Thanks --Sikh- History 14:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure; you were all exemplary editors and you did almost everything yourselves.
 * I'm going to take a look at the other case; however, it's already been developing without the guidance of a mediator and it could be a little more difficult... If I think I can handle it, I'll be glad to jump in. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up. I've taken a look and I fear I can't handle it: first, I know almost nothing of the issue at hand (it's the first time I've heard of "bali sacrifice") and, then, the discussion has progressed way too much in a disjointed fashion. To be able to follow it, perhaps it should start over...
 * And, most important, I'm a fairly inexperienced mediator so, to be extremely sincere, I wouldn't want to make things worse... I'm sorry.
 * That said, I thank you all the same for the vote of confidence! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying. Regards--Sikh- History 08:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio
Thanks for the welcome! The links should be useful for a newcomer like me =).

I'll come back to you for help!

Samxrr (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; we always need new vandal fighters! If you need anything, feel free to come back; my talk page is always open.  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gioia del Colle
Transformed with a huge machine-translated addition by our old friend from Montursi. I left this one alone rather than jump in and retranslate it, other than fixing the lede and flagging it as a rough translation. However, an IP came along and put in a lot of effort, so I just did what I could to polish it up. Although I left the demographic template thingie sitting there because I wasn't sure what to replace it with. Just letting you know that it still needs an expert eye - I am not at all sure of my rendering regarding windows in the curtain wall, Bonaventura da Lama and Pantaleo, and the terminology of the marriage. the article is no longer an utter embarrassment, and readers may now gawk at the legend of the lady presenting her breasts and her baby on a silver platter to the Holy Roman Emperor, but I hardly qualify as a bilingual. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to take a look; perhaps it's time we reported our common friend to WP:ANI, because his lack of competence is disrupting Wikipedia... Opinions? Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hasn't edited since . . . actually I've been involved in drafting a RfC on a long-term case of lack of competence involving bad translations from several languages, but not Italian and not apparently by machine: . Not quite sure what's happened with that, but that person has already had one RfC years ago and one ANI mention many years ago and sadly nothing much has changed. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I see I had messed up in about half the places where I suspected I had . . . I made very minor changes and removed the "rough translation" template, but I left an empty section under Demographics. I think I will now look at the graph in the Italian version and write one or two lines summarising it. Feel free to come along and either replace it or mark it "citation needed." Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
You should really be putting your reports at the bottom of the list not the top. I suppose it doesn't really matter one way or the other, but someone will probably mention it at some point, so it may as well be me. Page protection is the only page I know of where the latest reports go on top. Half Shadow  22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that this isn't a defense, but it's Twinkle that puts them at the top of the list (and, by the way, I was sure I had read somewhere that new reports were supposed to be put at the top, but, for the life of me, I can't find it anymore). Thanks for dropping me a line, however. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 22:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh. Twinkle. More trouble than it's worth. I prefer to do it by hand. Half  Shadow  23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehm... Without Twinkle, it would take twice me as long to do anything I do... I love the thing, even though sometimes it screws up big time...  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tag removal
My deletion of the code was unintentional...sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mimifashion (talk • contribs)
 * No problem; I've just restored it. Please, do not do that again, however. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

First Data's links on wikipedia
Hey Salvio, just posted the template on the discussion section. Let me know if there's anything else we need.

Regards,

CS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaenzs (talk • contribs)
 * Just keep an eye on the page, to see when someone responds to your query.  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanawhitenburg
Hi. I didn't speedy this, because once the spam-link is removed it is acceptable; but I have left the user a warning about spam and ELs. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Role/group accounts
I'm bringing this over from UAA so as not to continue a somewhat off-topic discussion on the noticeboard. Now that I've taken a better look at the info available in Twinkle, I think in general you're right that role/group accounts fit the "misleading username" criteria as written in the little info pop-up. But in this case the user,, was using the account for promotion, which is why I would have checked the "promotional username" box. Either way, I think we're in agreement that the username is a blatant policy violation. Perhaps we can request that the Twinkle coder(s) add a fifth checkbox for "group account", because to me "misleading username" implies things like impersonating a famous person or giving a false impression that the user has some sort of authority. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first I have to admit I'm not a native English speaker, so more often than not I may fail to perceive some nuances that can come naturally to other speakers.
 * I can see what you mean, however. I've always chosen the misleading label for those because of Twinkle's info box and because it's the closest category of the four provided. We certainly could the coders ask to fix this, but, to be honest, I don't think it's really needed; after all, the important thing is to be understood. If I report a group account as promotional or misleading, instead of "role account", in the end, very little changes, in my opinion...
 * But I must admit that I'm a member of the WP:DGAF club...  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 17:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)