User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 2

1

Salvio,

I guess I didn't read enough of the guidelines to understand what I had to do to post a credible addition to the W database. I wrote that the opening chord sequence to the McCartney song "Tomorrow" is the same as that of the Lennon/McCartney song "Yesterday", but I didn't lay out the facts. I don't know if you are a guitarist. If you are, the following should suffice. If you aren't, maybe you have a friend who can play this.

F Em A7 Dm Bb C F C Dm G Bb F Yesterday, love was such an easy game to play, now I need a place to hide away, oh I believe, in yesterday

F Em A7 Dm Bb Bbm F A7 Bb C F Oh, baby don't you let me down tomorrow, through the week we beg and steal and borrow, oh, oh, for a chance to get away tomorrow.

Mdouris (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)matt

I don't dispute that, I just pointed out that your article lacks context... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

deletion of into the gauntlet

When you saw into the gauntlet, I had just started. I had gone off to get some info before continuing. It was fixed. Something went wrong when you tried to fix it and all my work was lost.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFinbar55 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 

Very good; I've seen that you're now expanding the article! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of G4

Hi. Thanks for tagging Hunterizzle just now, but the {{db-repost}} tag, WP:CSD#G4, is only for use where the previous deletion was by AfD. If the previous deletion was a speedy and the article is still speediable, just speedy it again with the appropriate tag - {{db-hoax}} in this case. There is good advice on speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Keep up the good work! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Khalid Mrini

Hi Salvio,

Any reason why you asked for speedy deletion on Khalid Mrini??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimozmar (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no indication of why he should be considered important or significant... If you think he is, please explain why, using the {{hangon}} tag. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Padb

Hello Salvio giuliano. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Padb, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to software. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mtiuluri & Khevsuruli

Then please remove those links in Dances of Georgia --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done already. I only left the links to existing pages. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tobin Sorenson

Hello Salvio giuliano. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tobin Sorenson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article asserts importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to remove the tag myself, you beat me to it... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pick your brain again, please...

Hi Salvio, I've been trying to understand about the appeal filing by the prosecution in the MoMK case. In particular, I wondered if the act of filing an appeal bestows additional rights for the prosecution to present the case differently in the appeal court. For instance, does it allow them to introduce new evidence that they couldn't have introduced if they hadn't filed? Of course, they may simply feel that the sentence is actually too lenient (or they may think that by "bidding high" they might avoid the sentence being reduced). However, I wondered if there is also some procedural reason that means that an appeal filing is advantageous to them. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, all verdicts consist of capi and punti. A capo refers to a charge (a Judge can convict a single defendant of various crimes with only one sentenza) and a punto refers to every single topic within a capo (for instance, one capo deals with the mens rea, another with the actus reus and so forth). The defendant and the Prosecutor must appeal specific punti, because the Appellate Court can of course retry the defendant, but its cognizance is limited to the appealed punti (if I appeal against the punto of the verdict that does not grant me an extenuating circumstance, the Judge cannot, for instance, acquit me or change the charges).

That said, within these boundaries, the Appellate Court can do everything: it can hear new witnesses, admit new evidence and re-evaluate the evidence admitted by the Court of first instance.

At the end of the trial, the Court can uphold the verdict of the Court of first instance, but it can also change it. It can convict on a different count, provided that this crime is within the cognizance of the Court of first instance (that is to say, that the Appellate Court can convict of aggravated battery one who was convicted of attempted murder or viceversa, but cannot convict of manslaughter one who was convicted of murder or viceversa; in these cases, the Court quashes the verdict and the correct Court of first instance must retry the defendant). It can increase or decrease the tariff, add or remove aggravating or extenuating circumstances. In rare cases, it can quash the verdict and a Court of first instance must try again.

If the Prosecutor does not appeal, the Appellate Court cannot increase the tariff, that's presumably why the Prosecutor did actually appeal. But it could also be because he thinks that the sentence was too lenient.

Glad to be of help; if you need clarifications, don't hesitate to ask! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the (as always) detailed and informative reply! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

for future reference ...

{{User|Example}} gives Example (talk · contribs); less controversial than the 'vandal' template.   pablo_hablo. 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you: I've just replaced the templates! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue about the the page Cessation-continuation debate

I have removed the whole content of the page Cessation-continuation debate for following reasons:

1) The content was my contribution in another Wikipedia page Cessationism, but was moved without my consent to the new page Cessation-continuation debate. As such, the content is out of its original context. It should be in the original page because it is an account of the dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists from a Cessationist point of view. The account of the dispute, as it is represented in the new page, is therefore distorted

2) If we should have a new page dealing with the dispute, there should be both Continuationists and Cessationists present as contributors.

3) The title of the new page "Cessation-continuation debate" is wrong. It is not a dispute between "cessation" and "continuation," but about two views called "Cessationism" and "Continuationism."

I request that the new page Cessation-continuation debate is removed because it was created from my article without my consent. Please, see the discussion in Talk:Cessationism#Split article about this issue. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I now see that you were not vandalising — but blanking a page, without providing a reason in the edit summary or discussing it beforehand, prima facie appears to be vandalism —. I apologise for reverting your edit and suggest that you keep discussing the issue to get consensus. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It was my fault. I forgot to give comments for the change. I was quite surprised when I saw that the entire second part of Cessationism was moved to the page Cessation-continuation debate and my initial reaction was to blank the page. I did not know how to proceed at first. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it: no harm was done. ^__________^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

i am sorry

i am sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.120.152 (talk • contribs)

Oh, don't sweat. No damage was done.

Just please do not do it again. *_________^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ma che succede a en.wiki

Ciao Salvio, ho bisogno del tuo aiuto. Ho creato e tradotto delle pagine dall'italiano all'inglese come per esempio "House of Cerva". Ora c'è un problema, un paio di utenti, di nazionalità croata, hanno stravolto le pagine da me create tagliando via i nomi italiani (la famiglia Cerva attualmente fa parte della nobiltà croata) e mi accusano di essere un sockpuppet di chissà quale altro utente. Per favore, al di là dello scempio commesso sulle pagine, avrei bisogno del tuo aiuto per confutare gli attacchi che mi stanno muovendo. Grazie --Theirrulez (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Do subito un'occhiata! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, this disruptive account is just another very obvious sock from a long looong line of obvious socks pushing highly disruptive nationalist POV on articles related to the history of Croatia. There are literally dozens of them appearing every month. (I can understand Italian rather well, ma parla per favore in inglese). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(Conflittato) Salvio per favore, guarda addirittura la cronologia della pgina di discussione di DIREKTOR, ogni mia richiesta di discussione viene automaticamente cancellata, nascondendosi dietro accuse verso di me. La prossima accusa che mi muove la prendo come un attacco personale. Ti chiedo formalmente di compiere il redirect inverso a quello fatto da Direktor, Il nome internazionale (e ciè inglese è Cerva -attualmente la famiglia Cerva è di fattancora vivente in Italia, e i riferimenti portati sulla voce dal sottoscritto sono chiari). Grazie dell'aiuto, mi sento un po' accerchiato  :( --Theirrulez (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed through his edits and they appear to be controversial — on it.wiki he was blocked for a month on April 27th —. I know nothing about his alleged sockmaster, so I don't know if your allegation is correct, but I think that he does not need my help, because you're not trying to stalk him or otherwise wrong him. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(in Italian) I tuoi contributi mi sembrano controversi, sinceramente. Io non so se tu sia un sock. Quello che so è che, secondo me, prima di fare quei cambiamenti avresti dovuto cercare di ottenere il consenso. Se davvero non sei un sock, il mio consiglio è in quella direzione: cerca di risolvere il problema con Direktor, magari attraverso WP:DR.
(in English) Your edits do appear to me to be controversial, frankly. I don't know whether or not you're a sock. What I know is that, according to me, before making those edits you should have looked for consensus. If you really are no sock, my advice is to try and get consensus. Try to solve your dispute with Direktor, perhaps through WP:DR. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Non preoccupatevi, non farò più contributi in pagine così fortemente influenzate da pochi utenti. Mi senbra si sia usato uno strumento di intimidazione, come l'accusa di essere un sock bannato chissà quanto tempo fa, quindi, poichè ho già avuto una brutta esperienza su it.wiki, su cui sono stato vittima di una segnalazione manipolatoria per una controversia però su tutt'altro argomento, non voglio cadere nello stesso errore e per questo lascio il passo a chi ha già consolidato accuratamente un consenso che a volte si scontra con le fonti, come il voler a tutti i costi slavizzare i nomi su en.wiki (quando nella maggior parte delle fonti internazionali la forma croata non viene usata, fatta eccezione per le personalità a partire dal XIX secolo o quelle di importanza per la letteratura croata). Interessante in questo senso come Direktor si preoccupi di cambiare il nome Ragusa in Dubrovnik in tutte le pagine che fanno riferimento a epoche precedenti al 1814 anno in cui il nome Dubrovnik fu introdotto dagli Austriaci. E' assurdo e pov al pari di usare il termine Istanbul per far riferimento a Costantinopoli al tempo dei longobardi. Ma questo ha sancito il consenso du en.wiki, e io mi conformo a ciò.

Però mi tiro indietro, perchè non condivido la situazione, e do modo a DIREKTOR di stare sereno e continuare nella sua direzione.

P.S. In ogni caso ora chhe siamo tutti tranquilli, che io mi sono tirato indietro, ecco come si regola il consenso: accuse di sock e cancellazioni sulla propria talk di richieste di dialogo..--Theirrulez (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(in Italian) Io non so nulla di toponomastica, lo ammetto; quindi, non sono la persona più adatta a dare risposte sul tema, mi dispiace. Usando, com'è ovvio, la versione italiana dei nomi, non mi serve di sapere quale sia la convenzione internazionale sull'uso. Ma sono molto felice di vedere che accetti il consenso! Questo, ovviamente, non implica che tu non debba provare a cambiarlo, se ritieni che sia erroneo.

L'idea di non fare più interventi è, però, a mio parere sbagliata: se si tratta di argomenti controversi, intervieni pure. Solo cerca di farlo, magari, per prima cosa, sulla talk dell'articolo, così da evitare di scatenare edit war o accuse di sock.

Ciò detto, secondo me anche Direktor ha sbagliato, perché ha continuato ad annullare i tuoi interventi ed a cancellare i tuoi tentativi di discussione. Però, in fondo, lo capisco: ha creduto, io sono convinto in buona fede, che tu fossi un sock e, quindi, non ti ha prestato attenzione. Non so se si arriverà alla necessità dell'intervento di un checkuser, comunque, una volta che sarà stato chiarito che tu non sei un sock, sono certo che Direktor sarà molto più aperto a discutere con te.

(in English) I know nothing of toponymy, so I cannot be of help. I use the Italian names, as it is obvious, so I ignore what international sources say. But I'm glad to see that you accept to conform to consensus, from now on. This, however, does not mean that you cannot try to change it, if you do not agree with it.

I find your decision not to edit those articles anymore wrong, if I can say that: if the issue is controversial, you can edit. You just have to try and discuss your proposed changes, by using the article talk page, so as to avoid edit wars and sockpuppetry accusations.

That said, I think that Direktor too made a mistake, because he cancelled your edits, when you were trying to have a discussion with him. I understand why he did that, though: he believed — in good faith, I'm sure — that you were a sock and, so, he ignored you. I don't know if there'll be any need for a checkuser to step in, but I'm certain that, once it has been established you're not a sock, Direktor will be open to discussing things with you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Grazie, disamina equilibrata. Credo però che Direktor sappia perfettamente che non sono il replicante di nessuno, quindi, ringraziandoti per il tuo invito a discutere sul consenso, avonvi provato, cortesemente mi defilo poichè il consenso stesso mi sembra blindato come più su ti ho spiegato. E poichè ti ribadisco, ho già fatto a mie spese l'esperienza di cimetarmi laddove esista un consenso condiviso da minoranze (vedi il mio storico italiano) preferisco non rimanere implicato in queste aree di wikipedia così fortemente influenzate, che io, IMHO, ritengo essere derive pericolose per il progetto stesso. Grazie ancora per la tua disponibilità, buon lavoro e buon w-e. --Theirrulez (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mi puoi aiutare a fare una segnalazione per violazione della regola del 3 revert rule? Non se ne può più. DIREKTOR sta stravolgendo ogni cosa in questi giorni EPURANDO le pagine della storia Dalmata da ogni riferimento romanzo o vagamente italiano. Accusa tutti di essere dei sockpuppet, prima Crisarco, poi me, entrambi onorabili wikipediani da lunga data, addirittura Piero Montesacro, che in it.wiki è un admin!! E con questa strategia rollbacka che è un piacere, intimida e intimorisce, oppure ridicolizza qualsiasi richiesta d'aiuto agli amministratori indicando i suoi oppositori come sock di utenti già ban.nati. Puoi controllare qui la cronologia di Talk:House of Crijević e constatare che ha violato palesemente la suddetta regola, per la quale, peraltro è più che recidivo. Ti chiedo di intervenire formalmente o ad aiutarmi a segnalare l'accaduto per mettere un freno a questo approccio a mio avviso pericolosissimo al progetto. ‎ Grazie davvero.--Theirrulez (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Da qui puoi segnalarlo sulla apposita noticeboard. Io darò un occhio, per vedere se serve una mano. Lo farei io, ma temo di violare WP:CANVASSING. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Grazie ci provo, però la cosa si sta facendo grave, ha revertato tutte le talk in cui ho scritto, ha cancellato tutto! Si fa schermo dichiarando che io o altri siamo socks, o si ferma subito e capisce o la situazione si fa grave.

Anyways nel frattempo provo acimentarmi con il link che mi hai dato.

(edit conflict) Altrimenti, se ritieni che sia più utile un discorso più lungo ed articolato, puoi andare su WP:ANI. In entrambi i casi, ricordati di notificargli che lo hai segnalato. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, hold on, do you know this person from itWiki? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote on your talk page, before seeing your message. Anyway, I don't, but he is a well established user there... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you say the time and place is very "wrong" indeed:

• The Maritime Republics article was semi-protected against edits from a (rather notorious) group of banned sockpuppeteering users who like to hang out at itWiki (they have at least several dozen socks to their name, and they appear constantly). Suddenly the Theirrulez account is created two days ago and immediately starts pushing their edits, not only there but also on the Template:Maritime Republics. Its his first action.
• He edits consistently in concert with other 100% confirmed socks (e.g. the just-recently-banned account User:Butler.banana/USer:Ragusino) and well-known banned user IPs such as that of User:PIO.

I asked if you knew the person since I can't be sure this is indeed the same User:Theirrulez from itWiki, or just another attempt to assume a convenient itWiki username. Call me paranoid, but it has happened before :P. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot confirm anything: even though I'm Italian, I do not edit on it.wiki. That said, I think that he is the same user from it.wiki, because he talked to some it.admin about stuff from it.wiki, here.

I know this is not hard evidence, but it's the only thing I know for sure. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sei stato utilissimo Salvio, controlla se va bene, faccio riferimento al comportamennto verso di me, senza generalizzare, e ho tolto qualche aggettivo. Ti confermo di essere attivo anche su it. wiki, fr.wiki, es.wiki e pr.wiki, dal 2006, meno di un mese fa ho portato in vetrina su it.wiki una voce Rodi Garganico poichè sono uno studioso ed un'appassionato della storia e della geografia dell'Adriatico, in particolar modo della zona Pugliese. Come credo tu abbia capito sono recentemente incappato in una discussione che mi ha visto purtroppo farne le spese, ma mi ero avventurato in un territorio che non mi competeva e ho pagato la mia sciocchezza. Grazie ancora per il supporto, finora impagabile. --Theirrulez (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(in Italian) Io rimuoverei i richiami alla strategia del terrore ed all'epurazione, che sono presunzioni di cattiva fede. Per il resto, il commento va bene.

E sono sempre felice di poter dare una mano.

(in English) I'd remove the terror strategy and epurated bits, because they might appear to be a violation of WP:AGF, but aside that, I'd say that your comment is ok. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Yuen Chai-Wan

Hello Salvio giuliano, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Yuen Chai-Wan has been removed. It was removed by Fram with the following edit summary '(Not a living person, so BLP prod removed. Needs sources though.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fram before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please reply to newly added info

Mughalnz (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to catch up with events...

Hi Salvio, I've just had a few days' staying with friends (no Internet) and I'm now catching up on developments. I can't find the ANI case regarding Zlykinskyja, either on the main page or in the archive, so I wondered what was the outcome. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no outcome... At least not yet, the thread was archived. I'm restoring it to the project page. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I couldn't find it in the archive...I must have looked in the wrong place! Bluewave (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find it either (in was in the archive page n. 612, but on the main page only pages up to n. 610 are linked to); I used the search tool and read some crap before finding it. ^_____^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for annoying you again but i have responded to some of wiki readers allegations

also a decision from you to moved forward as written on the end of the page.Mughalnz (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ACC confirmation edit

I requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in as well as the mailing list.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New section

wow that was quick. I done hat edit for a guy i know for a joke. What software do you use to get wikipedia to automatically remind you when there's an edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.110.187 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Huggle. Impressive, eh? ^_____^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ben Bridwell

Thanks for removing the vandalism from this page (twice!) - much appreciated. Iangurteen (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. We're here to protect and to serve. ^_______^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)