Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

UFC 155 and UFC 156

These articles should have an individual page, they are notable because a title is being fought for at the events, and they are almost certain to take place, therefore they pass nobility and crystal ball. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How on earth does UFC 155 and UFC 156 violate WP:NOT?

World titles are being defended at the 2 events. These articles need to be recreated, and as individual pages, not redirects... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've already said above, I'm not the person you should complain to regarding this issue, for I was not the admin who closed the original deletion discussions — though I personally find the two closures reasonable. You should discuss the issue with Kww (talk · contribs). Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion and saw that many more people were supporting than not. Though there were more comments from you and two other deletion supporters than everyone else. Kww does not even respond to comments and was wrong to close the discussion. Perhaps you could reverse this decision. This event is coming soon and all the backstory will be lost if a page is not created to allow people to post information.97.96.181.234 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Per policy, I am not allowed to overturn Kww's closure: if you think he was wrong, you can either try to convince him to change his mind or, failing that, you have to file a WP:DRV. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

db-G6 moves of Phủ Lý & Việt Trì counter class RM result

Hi, I thought I had contacted you about this before, but seems I was mistaken. These are ancient history, but other db-G6 admins have reverted theirs, and I happened by chance to notice that you put yourself on Administrator Review inviting feedback so here goes... Following the 07 August 2011 Talk:Cần Thơ Vietnam geo RMs a spate of db-G6 requests contrary to the result were implemented in good faith by various db-G6 admins, including several specifically mentioned in the RM. You yourself moved Phủ Lý and Việt Trì counter result of RM three weeks after close, though those two towns weren't among the 14 specifically listed. Edgar181 and Graeme Bartlett were, in complete good faith, most affected and have reverted their db-G6: If you click down the Talk:Cần Thơ RM histories you'll see some of the db-G6 and reverts. I'm therefore requesting that you please restore Phủ Lý & Việt Trì to status quo in line with the RM result 3-weeks prior to the db-G6 moves you actioned, and also in line with all VN geo RMs before and since. It is of course up to you, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This issue was dealt with on ANI a long time ago. Yet every time I turn around IIO is shopping it in another forum. There were also RMs in favor of non-diacritic titles too, so the analysis above is bogus. If an article has been stable at a particular title for well over year, how can the "status quo" be some other title? Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio, well I'm afraid that despite attempts by this User to personalize it with any editor taking issue with these undiscussed moves, long before I noticed the editing two admins, Prolog and Gimmetoo, had already left messages on this User's talk page regarding removal of RM bot notifications, and requesting a stop to undiscussed moves. You can check that with Prolog and Gimmetoo. Not to mention various non-admins who left messages. Also despite the claim of ancient history in the context of geo RMs misuse of db-G6 continues, including this db-G6 counter 2 RMs from 10 December 2012. The db-G6 moves are ongoing.
Additionally, Kauffner,
in fact those 2 are not the only db-G6 you submitted which were actioned by Salvio were they? I see now, looking back at your db-G6 submissions for the month before you also submitted db-G6 for "uncontroversial moves" on general Lê Văn Duyệt (1763-1832), Confucian scholar Chu Văn An (1292–1370), Mandarin Cao Xuân Dục (1843–1923), princess Huyền Trân (b.1289), general Hoàng Kế Viêm (1820–1909), scholar Lê Văn Hưu (1230–1322) , mandarin Lê Quát (fl.1370), empress Trần Thị Dung (d.1259), prince Trần Liễu (1211–1251), prince Trần Ích Tắc (1254–1329), the Thuận Hóa territory, king Mạc Đăng Dung (1483-1541), prince Lý Long Tường (b.1174), king Lý Huệ Tông (1194–1226), princess An Tư (1225–1400), all with the db-G6 summary "per discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, Britannica, WP:UE, and official use by the Vietnam News Agency." But there is no discussion at the 8:5 RM result of the Chicago Math Professor and communist officials of any Nguyễn Dynasty or earlier figures, no mention of most if any of these figures in Britannica, no mention in VNA, a tickertape. And as regards WP:UE most of these Confucian figures are mentioned with Vietnamese spelling in at least some history texts. A quick check on Lê Văn Duyệt shows Vietnamese, American and Roman Catholic sources spelling his name in Vietnamese. But this isn't the place for a debate on sources. Your db-G6 template misrepresented the Talk:Ngo Bao Chau RM result. These should have been taken to RM like the db-G6 on scholar Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên (c.1400). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I also thank you for restoring Vietnamese diacritics. Well done. ༆ (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA sanctions

Hey, Salvio, you closed this discussion with the imposition of discretionary sanctions. Procedurally, is there some sort of notice for community-based sanctions that can be placed on MMA article talk pages? Related to that, do these kinds of sanctions always require a warning to the editor first, unlike many ArbCom sanctions?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have created {{Mmawarningtalk}}, a template that can be placed on talk pages to inform those who are about to edit an MMA-related article that the entire topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions, but this is an optional step; generally, however, before restricting a user, he should have been personally warned of the existence of said sanctions — which can be done using {{subst:Uw-mmawarning}}. All sanctions should, then, be logged here. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Terrific - succinct and helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well deserved. Here's hoping your bring the committee the thoughtfulness and humanity you've shown as AC clerk and ANI volunteer et. al. NE Ent 20:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Grats.VolunteerMarek 20:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! I'm just happy the elections are over. Though I fear that the stressful part has just begun. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

free popcorn

for the part

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Salvio

(edited} I retract what I just wrote... I just noticed your'e having health issues, and maybe you're just having a bad day. I've been there (cancer survivor). So, let me retract my original message. I'm hatting (or was hatting) Black Kite's note because it's very incivil, first he's an admin, and should be leading by example, second, of all places to be incivil, he's doing this in Arbcom in a request that deals with someone elses civility issues. I'm not refactoring or removing and I'm certainly not stopping him from talking. I would expect no less for myself if I posted that kind of a message. (Actually, I'd expect a block from you or any other sysop for doing that kind of thing - and it would be deserved ).

I'm not making a point, just enforcing civility with the only direct option I have (I can't revdel, I can't remove, but I can hat it and mark it incivil. Doing that is not a block worthy event. (And so we're both clear, no I won't touch it, I have something like four sysops and one user against and me for, so I acknowledge that as a consensus that I need to leave it be )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's a fine line between upholding policy and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: it would seem that you've crossed into the latter. Actually, it's not even that fine a line. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, FWIW, I appreciate the sentiment, but for the future: I don't think enforcing civility is your job, especially not on arbitration pages, which have designated clerks whose job it is. Leave it to those who have the tools (and gumption, which I probably lack) to do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Writ Keeper on this. First, while I agree that civility is a policy, the first step should always be discussion: to hat someone else's comments without first discussing the issue with them should only be done in rare circumstances. It was a particularly bad idea in this case, considering there are people, the ArbCom clerks, who are tasked with keeping an eye on ArbCom pages, in order to intervene when someone behaves disruptively. I understand you were acting in good faith, but you should not have hatted another editor's comment and, above all, you should not have insisted, when your actions were undone. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman block

Hmmm Prioryman was blocked in 2010—if I read the log right that was a mistake. Blocked in March for 24 hours, and unblocked after about 2 hours. Blocked in October (indef) and unblocked in under an hour.

I accept the notion of escalating blocks, but I would have argued that the next logical progression might be 24 hours, and let it stick, or maybe 48 at the outside. Jumping to a week when the longest prior block was under 2 hours seems like a big jump. That said, while the reference to DC was indirect, it looks like gaming to me, so I endorse the block.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, in his block review, says that he's surprised I only blocked for a week, while you think it's too long...

In determining the block length, I considered the amount of disruption that Prioryman has been causing whenever Wikipediocracy and its members have been in any way involved. This made me think that a longish block was needed; that consideration was, however, tempered by what you mention. For those reasons, taking everything into consideration, I thought that a week was just about right. As usual, however, I don't object to other admins modifying my admin actions, if they think I've erred. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One of my hobbyhorses is perceived length of block history. If one glances at Prioryman's block log, one might see six entries and think this is an editor with a lot of blocks, time to increase the length. (I'll like to see a block expungement policy, which at a minimum would hide the first two entries) However, while that impression would be misleading, your explanation convinces me that my concern played no part in your determination. That coupled with Bwilkin's belief that it should be longer, persuade me to back away. I'm trying to review the underlying substance in more detail, and frankly, my head hurts. One complication is that I believe Prioryman when he claims he thought he was within policy, but he's been around the block, and should have known better. There were better ways to handle the legitimate concern, and he knows it. I predict self-righteous indignation with a sliver of plausibility. But I did, and still do endorse the block.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Xmas wishes

Hi Salvio - could you see why I can still edit after making this edit and correct it for me me so it does take affect - happy Xmas/Thanksgiving to you and yours - Youreallycan 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Xmas to you too and to yours! I'm sorry I can't be of help, in this case: I have no idea why the wikibreak enforcer is not working... Do you have javascript enabled? That's the only thing I can think of... People at the village pump should probably be able to help you much better than I ever could. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Try bypassing your browser cache. T. Canens (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, WereSpielChequers! Merry Christmas to you too! Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

AUSC

I was curious what you were planning to do regarding your WP:AUSC position as a community member now that you have been elected to the committee proper. There is a two month overlap before your term on the AUSC expires. Monty845 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already informed my fellow AUSCers that, effective 31.12, I'll be resigning as a member of AUSC, although this was done in private. MBisanz will be taking my place. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

what is "snow delete" ??

I agree with the Peter Lanza result but have no idea what a "snow delete" is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It means that it is so clear that the only possible result of the discussion is to delete the article (that it has a snowball's chance in hell), that it would be pointless to let the discussion continue. (We have a page that discusses the concept here). — Coren (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what Coren said. It's short for "deleted per WP:SNOW", I'm sorry I was unclear. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. My fears of Frost Giant administrators are now calmed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request: Azra Zahid Islam

Salvio, an unblock request has been filed at User talk:Azra Zahid Islam, but the editor's only edits have been suppressed, making it impossible to evaluate the veracity of the request. Can you recall/review the edits at Special:Undelete/User:Azra Zahid Islam and provide guidance or handle the request? Belated congrats, btw. Kuru (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kuru and thanks! In this case, personally I'd decline the unblock request: I got involved with this editor when I actioned an OTRS ticket sent by a person who was claiming impersonation and who was asking for the suppression of this editor's userpage, which I did, since the page contained what I considered defamatory material. Unfortunately, being bound by the privacy policy, I cannot say too much — and I'm really sorry for that —, but Azra Zahid Islam's unblock request does not convince me one bit. If you wish, I'd be happy to step in; I just don't want to step on your toes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No toes to trod upon; I had zero information with which to form an opinion. I do now, and will close out the request in line with the narrative above. Kuru (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Possible sock repeater?

It's deja vu all over again, with similar interests on ref desk:

Timothyhere (talk · contribs)
Iowafromiowa (talk · contribs)
Keeeith (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been informed of this incident and I've come to defend myself. I can assure you that I have nothing to do with those users. The interest that I have in Nazi Germany and both World Wars have been with me forever. It would be unfair if I get a block. I hope that you all understand me. Keeeith (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again, Baseball Bugs, you have a keen eye for socks. I have just discovered a massive sock drawer and I have blocked the whole lot. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Very good. Meanwhile, please note this threat:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
That threat is a bit on the "meh" side for my tastes, but I'll report it to emergency, just to be on the safe side... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Probably just irritation. And regarding keen eyes, Medeis is actually the one who switched my dim bulb on, with this observation:[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Mail sent. And now we wait, at least until he creates the next sock, sigh... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It didn't take long:[3] Although it could just be a copycat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's him. Indeffed right off the bat. I also looked to see if a rangeblock was possible, but unfortunately the collateral would be huge... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I get an odd sense of deja vu with User:Ukboyy, although not clear enough for me to open a SSP. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeppers, that's him alright. I have indeffed the latest sock, but I fear we're in for some whack-a-moling... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Salvio giuliano! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TheGeneralUser, it's much appreciated! I'm sorry I was not able to reply sooner, but family kept my away from my computer. I wish you a wonderful new year! Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Overstepping the mark

Have I really overstepped the mark in this thread? It resulted in this. My suspicion is that different people will have different opinions because it is the long-running civility issue, but I find myself being frequently accused of incivility by Doncram and sometimes I think that those ill-founded accusations are themselves incivil, even if lacking in more crude versions of Anglo-Saxon verbiage. If I have to tone down any further then I may as well not bothering contributing because I feel as if I am being "played" by someone who is just steamrollering stuff through. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, you definitely have not overstepped the mark. There is nothing uncivil in what you said, as far as I can see, though, honestly, the phrase "fools rush in" could be misunderstood; for that reason, I believe that doncram's first post was made in good faith, and considering your explanation was quite reasonable, he should just drop it (and probably apologise for assuming you were insulting others). That said, anyone can remove whatever he wants from his talk page, without having to provide an explanation and can also ban others from posting there; in this case, unless there is something I'm missing, his edit summary does not appear to be uncivil either. From my standpoint, a pattern is emerging, however: doncram does not appear to be knowledgeable enough to be editing caste articles and he's heading for some sort of sanction, if he doesn't change his approach, but it's probably a bit too early to start brandishing WP:Castes just yet... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I wasn't mithered about the removal - I just linked that diff so that the full story was evident. I perhaps should have linked "fools rush in" in my original message but, honestly, Doncram is clearly an educated person and I'm pretty sure is from a major English-speaking country: if they've never heard of the phrase before then I'm going to have to treat them as an ill-educated person for whom English is a second language. That is likely to seem patronising, so doubtless I'll be brushed off again. I can't win, it seems, however I approach communicating with them but, yes, sooner or later the lack of experience is going to cause a big problem. We all have to start somewhere, of course, but he is listening to no-one except when they agree with him. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Hope you have had a good holiday thus far, here is a late xmas giftNangs new sock He added the same content as an IP a while ago[4] Shall also let El know in case he is around. 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged, thanks for the gift. How have been your holidays so far? Mine have been the massive mess an Italian family usually causes when they get together... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
From what I recall they have been damn good, wine, women and song. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
From what I recall... Usually, when I can't remember what happened, it means I had lots of fun... And I envy you: here, unfortunately, there were no interesting women (I love it that She who must doesn't understand English... ). Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed your edit to your user page, did you win the election for arb then? Hooray. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was one of the winners. Now I have the power. Muhahahahahahahahahaha. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
See, always works Darkness Shines (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Mkdwtalk 02:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

More mail. Mkdwtalk 05:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual

Given that he just recently created a bunch of accounts a few days ago I will be suspicious of any new accounts that go directly to editing Syrian pages as if they have been experienced. I will use this talk section for future requests. Sopher99 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DanielUmel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Robinogall (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Add VibrelliSognello (talk · contribs)... I have blocked the two latest socks... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

RTV

Hey, Salvio, I hope that you and yours have now consumed most of the mess that is an Italian family Christmas! I'm not massively familiar with the right to vanish policy. Could you perhaps take a look at this? I'm in trouble with a familiar face at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes again, also, I need to back off, I think, and will try my best. My last there was a bit of a kneejerk, although verifiable. Must try to pay more attention to what you, Dennis and others have said, ie: there are many eyes. Mea culpa. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, from what I can gather, Whenaxis exercised his right to vanish and his account was renamed in June 2012; in September 2012, someone recreated the Whenaxis account (I assume it was the same person who was trying to avoid possible cases of impersonation, but this is just an assumption of good faith on my part). I don't know why the Vanished account has suddenly become active again, only to redirect the older account's user talk page to the newer's... This is probably a question only he could answer...

On an unrelated note, I have left a warning on doncram's talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is very odd. I was wondering whether it might have been an unofficial usurpation but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems. Regarding the other matter,I need to slow down with my responses when he gets touchy about perceived incivility. It is unlikely to change those responses, but I need to try. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_58&oldid=1148817887"