User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

congrats[edit]

I'm glad to see you made it through the RfA and was granted admin status. Congratulations Tommy! 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD[edit]

Could you take a quick look at my contribs. I recently requested speedy deletion on several criterions and are getting antsy for an admin like yourself who has been very busy with deleting pages (this I see from the deletion log) to delete/decline them. Thanks and cheers. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 22:23, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Millers Creek Christian School[edit]

Hi Salvio. I was trying to despam the page for Millers Creek Christian School today, having found it in the queue at New Pages and see that you've blocked the account of the creator. Is an indefinite block really necessary? Carrite (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I believe it was. Per WP:ORGNAME, usernames that purport to represent an entire group are not permitted; this, Millers Creek Christian School (talk · contribs) was the case, in my opinion, so I blocked the user. That said, I chose to {{softerblock}} them. This means that they can create a new account, if they so wish. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD[edit]

You deleted P:Bolivia and I do understand why but I would want to recreate it but change it to the Portal:Bolivia instead of User:Ebe123/Portal:Bolivia which I requested deletion. Is "P:" like an acceptable abbreviation of "Portal:"? If so, would you accept that I recreate it? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page as a redirect from the main namespace to your userspace; criterion R2 excludes, among other things, redirects from the main namespace to the Portal: namespace, so, in such a case case, the page would not be speedily deletable. I don't know, though, how many redirects there are from P: to Portal:, but this is just idle curiosity. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking if you would accept if I remake it exempt that it would redirect at Portal:Bolivia. Not why did you deleted P:Bolivia. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 10:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I was unclear, when I said criterion R2 excludes, among other things, redirects from the main namespace to the Portal: namespace, so, in such a case case, the page would not be speedily deletable, I meant that I would not be deleting the page, if you chose to recreate it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

opencourse.cc[edit]

There is an organisation called "Opencourse.cc" it operates with works on creative common licenses. I am new to Wikipedia and it is possible I have not properly created the page but one thing for certain is that this is not an advertisment and that it is of great importance. Some of these courses are used by african students and students looking to prepare for university. Please HELP. I need to reword this article properly so that people like you do not wrongfully delete it and that this important encyclopedia reference remain intact. What do we need to do? Thank you so much for your help in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast7 (talk • contribs)

Well, first of all I'd like to suggest you to read our policy regarding notability — in this case, since opencourse.cc is an organisation, you can also read our notability criteria for organisations —, because we have this rule that only a notable thing can be the subject of an article and by notable we mean that it must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the first thing you might want to check. Then if you believe the article meets our notability threshold, my advice would be to create the a Userspace draft, that is a subpage in your userspace, such as User:Westcoast7/opencourse.cc — it's red because it hasn't been created yet —, where you don't have to worry about about speedy deletions, and write the article, trying to maintain a neutral point of view and, when you're through, you can ask for feedback here or at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback.

Finally, I'd like to point you to our policy regarding conflicts of interest.

I hope I've been thorough, but, if I haven't, please feel free to ask for a clarification! Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks[edit]

Grazie per la dritta, Salvio. Thank you! Daniele.tampieri (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piacere mio (my pleasure)! Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:BruceFisher[edit]

Hi, Salvio. Congratulations on becoming an administrator - I knew that you'd get it! I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to ask, but since you've recently edited at the talk page section in question and advised Cody, may I request that you give BruceFisher (talk · contribs) a caution or some recommendations for his remarks directed at me in this edit? I would do so myself, but since the WP:ANI row about a week ago I've made an effort to avoid the talk pages of users with whom I've had disputes. I don't really want to engage in another endless argument with this user and inflame things. If you can help, many thanks. SuperMarioMan 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can and I surely will. As an involved administrator, I cannot and do not want to block him, but I can of course warn them that his behaviour contravenes various policies and that if he persists, he'll be reported to WP:ANI.

And thanks for your congrats! It's been a stressful experience, but also a very formative one. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for issuing that warning, and no problem about the user page vandalism! I'm attempting to make the most of Rollback whenever appropriate and convenient. Unfortunately, a few of the one-click reverts that I've made so far have been accidental due to misbehaviour on the part of my laptop's touchpad, and I've had to hurriedly undo them with apologies... SuperMarioMan 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you! From time to time, when I'm looking through my watchlist, I misclick and accidentaly rollback... And then tend to swear, although just a tad... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the little argument below - I don't know what Bruce is attempting to get out of this pointless debate, but I do wish that he would listen to others a bit more and stop seeking out answers for questions that have already been answered. Anyway, see you around! SuperMarioMan 17:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now I see how this works. Would it be possible for you to ask SuperMarioMan why he did a bold revert on the Meredith Kercher article? He removed an image that he has no strong feeling about. When myself and others questioned this action, SuperMarioMan came here to ask for warnings to be issued. I accept the warning and I will do my best to be polite but the questions about SuperMarioMan's bold revert still remain. Are we allowed and answer if we ask politely? BruceFisher (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; personally, I believe that SuperMarioMan is far more likely to answer a polite question than a series of innuendos — you know, bees, honey and vinegar —. In this case, in my opinion, he honestly believed that the quality of the image was too poor or that it did not add to the article; but this is just a wild guess. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well he now says that he has changed his position. He is the one that took the image out of the article, why not state that you have changed your position and put the image back in? All of this debate and unneeded discussion about a bold revert that the user now thinks was unecessary does nothing but serve as a distraction to progress. Yet the image remains out of the article. Why? Oh, lets just forget I asked. I am not entitled to answers. This is a small detail but all of these small details add to the whole. Thanks for your time.
(Salvio, I don't want to bring the MoMK talk page to you, but I'm growing more and more irritated with Bruce's persistence in misrepresenting me - I'll set out my opinions here briefly, if that's OK.) Given the storm that has blown up in part because of that one revert that I made (it was almost a week ago, I'll add), I'll certainly be having nothing more to do with the image in the article itself. I won't add it back, I won't remove it again. Quite simply, Bruce (and Cody, as well as Tjholme (talk · contribs), who has also made enquiries) need to learn to just drop it and move on. John (talk · contribs) has removed the image a few times - but I won't be making further reverts. My opinion on the image itself is now rather neutral. SuperMarioMan 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I have the accurate details here. SuperMarioMan did a bold revert on an image that he has a neutral opinion on. So he has no opinion on whether it should be included or not included yet he removed it anyway and has not put it back. Let me know if I read this all clearly. We are being told to drop something that was done with absolutely no explanation. I just want to be clear, not attacking anyone. BruceFisher (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. You really can't let it go, can you? At the time of the revert, I thought that the image had more disadvantages than advantages. My views now are neutral - hence, I will be having nothing more to do with it. I'm not interested in this little detective game - give it up. SuperMarioMan 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to get angry. I am only asking questions. So just so I have it right, your current position is neutral but your bold revert remains in tact. Can we agree on that? BruceFisher (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully refer you to my answer above. If this interminable debate must be prolonged further, please take it back to the talk page where it belongs. I have nothing more to offer here. I am quite staggered at this doggedness in finding fault with one single action. You really would do well to listen to what Salvio, ErrantX and a whole host of other users have told you on multiple occasions at multiple venues about this subject - namely, to leave it be. SuperMarioMan 21:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate here. I simply asked you to answer a question. I know you have no obligation to answer any questions and I will note once again that you have chosen not to. I am sorry this has disrupted Salvio's page. It is unfortunate that this discussion was started about me in the first place. Hopefully there will be no need for anyone to run to Salvio for assistance regarding me in the future. BruceFisher (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNFAIR DELETION WITHOUT EVEN TALK OR DISCUSSION[edit]

Hi, you deleted Geo Godley page with no talk or explanation despite my talk page which explained; 'Geo Godley is an accomplished youtube video partnered & honors charted content provider with a 3000 hour archive & content dating back to 1990 & before, proving historic significance as one of the pioneer vloggers, with close to a million photos regularly contibuted in timelapse vidoes & web comics.' would appreciate an explanation for my wikipedia report. sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakygreek (talk • contribs)

I deleted the page under speedy deletion criterion A7, which allows an administrator to delete certain types of articles; the one you created, qualified for speedy deletion because it was an article about a web content that does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant; the fact that it has a million photos was not, to me, a claim of importance. Before recreating this article, however, try to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy regarding the notability of web content. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so why don't you delete all the other webcomics on the list? they have accomplished & contributed far less & don't have pioneer vlogging historic significance. l will be appealing to many other administrators.

Noleander Workshop[edit]

I do not want to further clutter up discusion with some very basic qustions about policy. Currently, the top proposal for the workshop is to add other parties. Yet, it is not clear to me why proposed this. Yet, the instructions for the page state " Please sign all suggestions and comments." Am I misinterpreting this instruction? Are we to leave actual proposed principld unsigned? If we ought to know who proposed what principle, could you please add the correct sig. or ask whoever proposed it to do so (I went back to the earliest edit history and couldn't figure it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added subheaders, which indicate who proposed the motion; I believe that every proposal should be attributable and this was as good a solution as any, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second question: the first raft of proposals are to add new people as partis to the conflict. Yet, again the instructions say "Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions." This does not include adding new particles. I am not trying to be a wiki-lawyer, I am just trying to be sure I make constructive contributions and do not add urther confusion to a complex case. I realize that one can interpret the "may" in the instructions to mean that what follows are examples and that in fact one "may" propose anything. For what it is worth, I think ArbCom should be able to word a clear and reasonable policy on what are acceptable proposals. I admit I do not follow ArbCom cases which is why I am turning to you on this, but in my experience the wording provided with one slight change prety much reflects our practice (the change: I would rephrase "may include proposed general principles" to "specific policies and guidelines, and elements of policies and guidelines, that are directly relevant to this case." Othewise I think that what ollows the "may" is a good description of what we actually do in workshops. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, but this is just my personal interpretation, that it is a way to let everyone who wishes to comment know that they can propose basically everything (general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions); I read it to say you don't have an arbitrator or a part to propose that someone be topic banned. And, so, that the statement you cite refers to the Proposed final decision part of the workshop. But I agree that this point could be clarified, at least considering that it is common to see motions to add parties in the Motions and requests by the parties section. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I raise this because adding new parties is not on his list and I do not recall it being done in the past (but again I defer to your experience). It srikes me as a bad idea in principle and in practice. In principle, ArCom ought to provide a window of opportunity for adding new particles and if it is not during the creation of the Main Case phase, when people can ask statements (in other words, ArbCom should have a policy in which they examine statements to decide whether other editors should be named as parties or asked i they wish to be named as partiels) then it should be dufing the "evidence" stage and thn ArbCom has to create a rule for itself, that it will not close the eivdence stage until all newly named particles have had a reasonable amount of time to post evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asked in the past: here, here and here, for instance. I do not actually recall if parties have been added before, but I'm just the junior clerk... And Arbcom has always tried not to close the evidence stage until all parties have had the opportunity to express themselves (the deadline was moved in this case to allow Noleander to respond to the evidence presented against him during his shorto holiday). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any rules on who can add particesm and when? Salvio, I may just be ignorant and if I am I hope you do not mind my asking you to direct me to the right places. But i we do not have clearly posted rules, it seems to me that common sense dictates that one cannot name new partices after we have moved on from evidence, and that anyone who wants to is either gaming the system or needs to create a new ArbCom page for a new conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we have no such rule... And, although the jurist in me agrees with you, in this case I believe it would only cause a waste of time and drama. Again this is my opinion, but as long as any new party is allowed to present their own evidence (moving the deadline and giving them the time they need), I'd say that it is acceptable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom cannot aqnnounce a policy or ruling about this soon, it risks turning the workshop into something of a circus, rather than a onstructive space where one moves from the evidence towards a resolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence+workshop stage is actually about to end; the target date was delayed to allow Noleander to respond to the further evidence that could have been presented during his absence, but I'd say that the voting stage should begin soon... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimally shouldn't any naming of new parties be backd up by evidence that mets ArbCom's standards for evidence?Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion it should be. However, from what I can gather, it looks to me that Tryptofish's motions are not going to be carried... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this. I certainly would hope that if I made any procedural mistakes, someone would correct me. I looked pretty carefully at the available instructions, and I thought that I was following them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, there were no procedural mistakes; I was merely presenting my personal opinion, regarding the addition of new parties to ongoing cases in general, which has nothing to do with the procedural correctness of any of your present motions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Salvio. I wasn't complaining about your opinions here, and I'm sorry that it sounded that way. I was just trying to say that I had sincerely thought that I was doing things correctly as I understood them, and if I was making a mistake, I would hope that someone would set me on the right path. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be most happy to, if I were to spot an error!

And, by the by, I'm glad you did not think I was being inopportune in this instance! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the GA[edit]

Do I still need to remove the GA nomination at the nominations page so that the bot will create the page that you deleted? Or will the bot create the review page, even without doing so? Moray An Par (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I'm a bit ashamed to say I don't know... That is an area I've never gotten involved in; I deleted your page only because it popped up in the speedy deletion queue. I'm really sorry, but I can't help you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So happy to see you again[edit]

Just a toccata e fuga, nothing more.. I'm still thinking if come and start again my contribution here on en.wiki or not.. But I'm very glad to see you.. In gamba Salvio!

Well, I for one hope you'll stay: you're a terrific contributor! E mi stai pure simpatico... All the best! Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I didn't see en.wikipedia has a new sysop.. Congratulations Mr. Salvio! I know you will do a great job. Se you soon, --Theirrulez (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice[edit]

Hi, since your a newly elected admin I thought you would be the person to ask. A new article has been created Bryan Doyle (politician) about an elected state politician. Now, Bryan Doyle is a redirect to the disambig. page Brian Doyle and no one on that page has their first name spelt with a y. So what would be the best course of action here? Thanks U8701 (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted Bryan Doyle per speedy criterion G6, to make way for a move and, then, moved Bryan Doyle (politician) there, adding an {{about}} template. I believe this was the best course of action, but if I was wrong, I'll self-revert, if anyone complains. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StorageCraft[edit]

Greetings Salvio,

I was working on the StorageCraft Wikipedia page that you deleted, saying it had no significance. I was actually in the process of updating that with citations and footnotes. I feel that the page does have significance, and it is also referred to from other Wikipedia pages.

What did I do wrong?

Kind regards - Lauraegoulding (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your article read StorageCraft, a privately held company, was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Draper, Utah. Its featured product line is ShadowProtect, so, as the message on your talk page explained you, the article did not explain why its subject was important or significant; only that it existed. I see that you have on your userpage a much longer version of the article and that you have already asked for feedback. The user who responded did not point you to our notability guidelines regarding corporations, though. Apart from that, it's much better, now — although it feels to me a bit promotional in nature —. If, after reading our policy, you believe that StorageCraft meets our notability threshold, then you can move your page to the article namespace; my suggestion, though, would be to explain why such a corporation is significant and, if you can, to add a few more third-party, reliable sources. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Salvio. I purposely avoided some of the "notability" language because I wanted to avoid making it sound promotional. I definitely have more links to add that support its notability (such as analyst product reviews), and I'm actually following the format of similar corporations that are already published on Wikipedia (such as Acronis. Thanks again for your help and suggestions! I'll continue to work on it. - LG

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

ImaUtahStudent765[edit]

I would like to start a page for the new degree offered for search engine marketing. There was never a bachelors degree offered before recently. I think this is a huge step for internet marketing. It is important to record the dates of this huge event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImaUtahStudent765 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2011

You are welcome to create an article about the new degree offered for search engine marketing, provided that it meets our notability threshold, meaning, as a general rule, that it must already have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources; articles about anything that's not notable yet will be deleted, unfortunately, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a means to promote something, so that it will be notable in the future.

That said, however, both of your articles were speedily deleted under criterion G11, as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:184.107.21.25[edit]

Lots of harassment and personal attacks, being warned for vandalism after blanking talk page (which contained a final warning; this user vandalized after a final warning essentially). Being ignored on AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my tardiness... Luckily, they were already blocked, though. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THEATREMUSEUMCANADA[edit]

I've unblocked this user to allow them to change their name. The unblock request seemed to cover the standard material fairly well, except for the part about engaging a third party. I've left them a note to please not do that. Kuru (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; it's appreciated. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

This is a very belated congrats on passing your RfA, and I feel awful for it! (Can I use jet lag and travel as excuses?) I hope you're doing well! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi, Im confused on why you decided to delete the page I was creating. RPGA Design Group? ... It said that it was ambiguos/advertising. How can I create the page without having it deleted?

Thanks,

Smk bukit mewah[edit]

It's going to end in tears if we both try to histmerge at the same time. I'll wait for you finish...

CIreland (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Yes. Sorry I stepped on your toes... I should have finished now; please, check I didn't break anything. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_16&oldid=1136144654"