User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 46

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

Cunnilingus[edit]

Hey Salvio. I was looking at the RfPP request for Cunnilingus, and I was actually inclined to protect it—there are no productive IP edits in the recent history, and it seems to get the same sort of childish drive-by vandalism every few days—so I'd be curious to hear your rationale for declining it (reasonable minds may differ, after all). TPSs whose eyebrows were raised at the section heading are welcome to comment! ;). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that semi-protection was not warranted because, all in all, the article receives few edits by non-autoconfirmed editors, and though many of them are vandalism, not all are (for istance, these, [1] [2], appear to have been made in good faith). Considering the edits the article receives are few and far between, I thought that level of vandalism would not be too onerous on vandal fighters to tackle... But if you think that those edits are too few and the game isn't worth the candle, please do feel free to protect the article. P.S. Best. Section title. Ever. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-PP at Kashmiri Pandit[edit]

Any chance of a 24 hour semi-pp at Kashmiri Pandit? A New York IP is back playing their old tricks with unsourced POV. They're hopping a bit, as in the past. No worries if you are busy - I'll send it to RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, the NY Library-ish IP has responded on the talk page & mentions you. See this, which includes my move of their comment for chronological reasons. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, Sitush, our secret is out... Thanks for the note. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon[edit]

Thanks! Location (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Should vandals hit again as soon as protection expires, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Under discussion[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Under discussion. 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, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pesky 1 RR thing again[edit]

Can crap like this [3] please be exempted from the sanction? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to appear dumb, but why do you define that as crap? Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Alert: The War Within Do you honestly think it is notable enough for an article? They have not even gotten the name of the protagonist correct. But if you think any old junk can be an internal,if for no other reason than preventing an orphan tag, fine by me. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked because the addition seemed made in good faith, though it's probably unneeded there. That said, it's a content issue, so, no, it's not exempted from the 1-rr. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if the revert beforehand were this one [4]? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you'd be reverting two different editors adding completely different content; I would not consider it a violation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you, I just wanted to know were the line was. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb, when two edits are entirely unrelated and made by different editors you can undo them without violating this restriction. It is meant to get you to discuss our edits, not to prevent you from improving articles when multiple editors make multiple, inappropriate edits. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist if you are willing[edit]

Please ensure I have properly published this appeal,[5] Advise me accordingly and if you have sufficient time, may I request your participation as clerk? One thing I would like to ask is that I request a stringent determination to uphold the highest expectations of "reasonably, civilly, and with decorum". My76Strat (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been informed, your request was malformed. If you want to ask that Betacommand's ban be reviewed, you have to present a request for amendment. Copy the following code
Extended content
== Request to amend prior case: Case name ==
'''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Example}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Principle 1
# Finding 2
# Remedy 3

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Username1}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Username2}}
* {{userlinks|Username3}}<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/?sample-diff Username2] (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/?sample-diff Username3] (repeat above for all parties)
===Amendment 1===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Details of desired modification

==== Statement by your username ====
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

==== Statement by other editor ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

===Amendment 2===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Details of desired modification

==== Statement by your username (2) ====
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

==== Statement by other editor (2) ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*
----
and then add it here.

Not speaking as a clerk, now, please be aware, however, that your request is very unlikely to be accepted. And will probably only result in you wasting your time... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and counsel. I think I have been given much to consider, from multiple editors in good faith. The most prudent action I can take at this time is to reconsider several relevant factors. And resume this action if the fuller consideration supports the merits of doing so. Again thank you. My76Strat (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not improper, will you please userfy Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of Betacommand 3 to User:My76Strat/Malformed appeal without a redirect? My76Strat (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's not improper, so  Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your proficiency and good faith approach to propriety is a testament of your service as an administrator. Your actions consistently reflect favorably on your own, well appreciated value, and brings credit to the entire admin body. At times I prefer stating these things than to leave them presumed. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am a tad embarassed , but many thanks for your kind words! Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neolloa999[edit]

You blocked Neolloa999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) the other day for edit warring. Since then they have created two sockpuppets, 1tisore1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ewans0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), to continue the war, both of which I blocked. Can you review and see if I should be trouted for blocking the puppets, if Neolloa999's block should be reset and/or the page should be semi-protected. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message!

And no need for trouts : those were two clear WP:DUCKs you caught there. And, for that, I have just increased Neolloa999's block to a week. That said, I don't really have any opinion regarding page protection, so I'll defer to your judgement! Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rschen7754 04:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

full protection on Rick Santorum?[edit]

Hello - please see these comments - I don't know what went into your decision to fully protect the article, because I don't see any rationale posted other than a vague edit summary, but I think protecting for three days is overkill and unnecessary, and not an appropriate action when essentially one editor is misbehaving. In any case, it appears that he has agreed to stay away from this article, so if that was your reason, you really should return the article to its semi-protection, so that long-standing good faith editors can continue improving the article directly. Unexplained full protection is really not right for an article that is high-profile and has over 500 people watching, who can quickly revert any real vandalism. Please change the protection level to semi now, rather than have it play out another two days. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You present a reasoned request. I am confident you are addressing a reasoned administrator so logic should undoubtedly prevail. I am strictly devils advocate here, but what is the harm of imposed stabilization of an article in flux for two days? My76Strat (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article being in flux is not a good reason for full protection which in my view should be used sparingly and only in cases of extreme edit warring. And then only after sufficient warnings to the editors who are engaged in such edit war, or at least general warnings on the article's talk page. I'm in favor of semi-protection for an article like this, to protect against drive-by vandalism, and I wish we had instituted some kind of flagged revisions as the community repeatedly has called for - but meanwhile I think it is important that editors be able to edit. Tvoz/talk 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I substantially agree with your assertions here and above. My76Strat (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Admins do not have to post an explanation as to why an article was protected on its talk page. They can, if they wish.
  2. I do not appreciate your tone on the article's talk page and on AN.
  3. There was not only one editor misbehaving. Over the last few days, there had been various, intertwining, minor edit wars being fought in parallel. Diffs of the most serious one: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Even without taking into consideration Youreallycan's edits, protection was, therefore, warranted, in my opinion.
  4. I'm not going to unprotect the article. If you want it unprotected, please ask here.
  5. Finally, next time you don't understand something an administrator does, politely ask him. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response at User_talk:Viriditas#WP:AN_notice. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← Salvio, thank you for the explanation. I understand that admins aren't required to post reasons for taking actions, but I hope you'd see how frustrating it is for good faith editors who have not been involved in a dispute and find the page fully protected without seeing warnings or clear explanation, and how helpful it is for all editors, including those who are creating the problem, to see an explanation posted so that they can understand what is going on and work with the other editors in finding solutions. This is especially true when you are talking about a fully protected page for one of the leading contenders for the presidential nomination in the height of primary season. In my experience as a lead editor of several of these types of articles in 2007-2008 (and also editing them now), full protection was rarely imposed, and if it was, it was clear to all why it was and it was very short-term. Usually problems were dealt with by dealing with the offending editors, or an admin shepherding a discussion to resolve disputes. Fully locking down these pages, in my view, is problematic because of the constantly changing situation and the need to have it accessible for improvements, additions, etc., by editors across the spectrum, to keep it unbiased and thorough. And locking down only one candidate's article creates an imbalance. When I asked the question on the article's talk page, which I think is the appropriate place to start, I was told it was because of one editor's vulgar edits, which would obviously be a textbook case for dealing with the editor, not the page. I only went to AN because there was a discussion going on there about that editor, so I asked the question there. I'm sorry that my tone seemed impolite to you, but that wasn't my intention - I was, and am, quite concerned about the inability to directly edit there, and I hope that you or another admin will step up and delineate the problem and help them work it out - this solution on its own seems hit-or-miss. By the way, I don't at all expect that you'd be available 24 hours a day to respond to such questions, which is partly why I asked it on AN when it appeared that the reason was the one editor being addressed there. I think that if this problem was so obvious and so severe as to require the extraordinary action of full protection, someone else might have given an explanation when the question was raised. So, I'm sorry I offended you, and I hope you can see why absent any clear explanation - especially since you say you were responding to what you say were several minor intertwining edit wars which I did not find to be immediately obvious - I would raise the question elsewhere. I'm hopeful this will be resolved quickly, as these pages need to be open (that is, semi-protected) for editing. Tvoz/talk 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. And many thanks for your clarification here; I really appreciate it. Regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I do hope that editors there will focus on working together, not on disruption, as we maintain and improve this article. Tvoz/talk 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]

Rollback: May not want it afterall[edit]

Thank you very much for granting my request for rollback. However, I may want to have you remove it.

While its nice to have the rollback option at my fingertips, I have since installed twinkle so to have the flexibility of reverting non-vandalism edits while generating standard edit summary when reverting more than one edit at a time. In other words, what I really was after was to be able to revert to last edit by a previous user (a clean version) after multiple unwanted edits by a single user and still have an edit summary automatically generated in the form Reverting edits by xxx.xx.xxx to last version by Joe Blow with the reverted user linked. I like this common edit summary but don't wish to have to manually type it out myself.

So I have just installed twinkle, which appears to give me this capability, though I have yet to actually try it out. I was under the impression that I need rollback rights to use twinkle. That isn't true though, is it?

Now as for rollback. If I don't need the rollback right to use twinkle, then I don't think I want rollback at all. My reason is primarily because of the "hot" rollback links all over my watchlist and page histories. I am fearful accidentally "rollbacking" someone's edit. I am using a laptop with a touch pad, not a clickable mouse or anything. I also sometimes edit from my iPhone; just the thought of trying that now...well you see what I mean.

Is there a way to confine the rollback links to the diff window only? If not, and if I don't need it to run twinkle, please remove my rollback rights. Thank you--Racerx11 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my above post, I meant the hot rollback links all over my watchlist and user contributions, not page histories (there would be only one there, right). Also just to clarify, I will wait for your response before giving you my final descision on removing rollback for me.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced that very same problem myself – though I actually have rollbacked edits in error a couple of times, due to the rollback icon on my watchlist – and there is a way to prevent the button from appearing on your watchlist: you just have to add
/* hide rollback from Recent Changes */
.page-Special_RecentChanges .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
/* hide rollback from Watchlist */
.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
 
.page-Special_Contributions .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
to your vector.css page (or monobook.css, if this the skin you use). I am not aware of any trick that would allow you to remove the rollback button from the user contributions page, however...

That said, this user right is not needed to install and use Twinkle, just to use Huggle or Igloo.

I'll wait for you to confirm that you actually no longer want this flag and, if so, then, I'll remove it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is Huggle that needs rollback rights. Yeah, that's where I got that from. It sounds like Huggle may also have the capability to revert multiple non-vandalism edits, provide default edit summary and still allow additional comments in edit summaries. I might try it also and see which works best for me, so I will have to keep rollback for now. I will also try your trick to remove rollback from my watchlist. Thanks for you help and I will get back to you later.--Racerx11 (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you know where to find me if you need anything. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I think the civility enforcement case is the second one where people, aware or not of the rules and/or case closure, continue to post on its PD page. Perhaps in cases which saw a high volume of edits, it's perhaps better to explicitly mark the case talk pages closed and direct future comments at the appropriate ArbCom noticeboard thread. That should result in fewer reverts being necessary, fewer rumblings on clerks' talk pages, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to think the very same thing... I believe I'll start a discussion with arbs and clerks and everyone else who's interested to determine what's the best procedure to follow after a case closes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion at Arora[edit]

You blocked an IP a few hours ago for warring/POV at Arora. They are back as a different IP. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. If they're back once again, please let me know and I'll semi the article. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're back. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you a week. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think some people set up reminders for semi-p'd articles that they're interested in messing with? This thing has only been unprotected for six days, after a long period of semi. It is weird. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible, yep – and I had missed the fact that semi-protection had just expired, sigh. If they come back as soon as my semi-protection expires, I'll protect for a year (you can quote me on that, if I grow forgetful ). Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely for my own information, what is the longest semi-protection of which you are aware? Never mind, I realized that there is indefinite semi protection. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a curious bit of info, the longest, non-indefinite semi-protection should be that of Cake, scheduled to expire on 31.01.2015, according to this page. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crumbs! That one must have been bad. Regarding your earlier reply, well, why not set up a reminder for yourself. Alternatively, why not just lockdown the entire project, eh? And don't forget to turn the light out as you go :) - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am, sadly, one of those people who either forget to add things to their organizer, or neglect to consult it or directly misplace it, so that they can no longer find it... She who must often reminds me of the many things I have apparently failed to remember in that shrill way only a loving partner knows. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am blessed with a reasonable memory but otherwise share that "don't note" trait. Leo McKern and John Mortimer: two good ones, gone. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! I loved them both (McKern is an actor I've always really, really liked – he was fabolous in The Prisoner! –), and Rumpole was a great character. I doubt anyone else could have played him that masterfully, though I have to admit that I've also always found Claude Erskine-Brown incredibly funny... Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected??[edit]

Hi, Salvio. I was in hospital (Appeal to pity) from 11 to 21 February, and thus didn't get to follow the closing stages of the Civility Enforcement case. I'm interested, however, and as soon as I got home, I read up on it and spent a long time typing up a comment for the Proposed Decision talkpage. I know it's belated, probably nobody cares anymore, etc (even though it only just closed, and I notice quite a lively discussion of some aspects going on on NYBrad's talkpage). Anyway, it simply never occurred to me that the talkpage might be protected so only admins can post on it. (I, for example, am not an admin.) Are unedifying comments feared, have they already been offered, or wtf? Is this remotely normal practice? The case was closed on 21 Feb, and apparently you promptly then fully protected the PD talkpage — only that one page — giving the reason "The case has been closed". Yeah it's been closed. So? Eventually they all get closed. The Betacommand 3 case was closed on 15 February, for instance and nobody seems to have taken a notion to protect the corresponding page of that (nor any other part of it). And, no other page of the civility case has been protected. Not the Proposed Decision page itself, not Evidence or Evidence talk, not.. etc, you get my drift.

I note the section "Suggestion" above. But you didn't exactly mark Proposed Decision talk "closed" and direct future discussion somewhere else, did you? You acted far more drastically (if I was annoyed, instead of gently sad and disappointed, I would have said "draconically" there) and locked the page down without explanation and without suggesting any alternative venue. As for the suggestion to mark talkpages "closed", even that would be pretty unusual. Pages like "Evidence" and "Workshop" have frequently, as in this case, been marked with a polite request that users not edit them any more (though nobody's actually prevented from doing so). That seems appropopriate. But their talkpages haven't been "closed", as IMO they shouldn't in fact be. (Let alone protected, or, a fortiori, fully protected.

Please unprotect Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision. I want to post a comment on it. It's a comment on the voting on the PD page, so the page you protected seems the obvious place for it. But if you know of a page that you have good reason to think better for my purpose, please share. Quick action would be appreciated. Regards, Bishonen | talk 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear of your health problems and I do hope you feel better now!

I protected the PD talk page for a couple of days, because the case has been closed, so there is no point in commenting on a proposed decision, which is no longer proposed. Protection should expire tomorrow, but I have to please ask to refrain from posting there. If you wish to comment on the case, you should post your message here. As a side note, the workshop talk page was briefly protected by the drafting admin. Best regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your opinion[edit]

Hello Salvio, I'd like your opinion on my opinion raised here. You have recently deleted a page and I wonder if I am off track to suggest an admin shouldn't delete their own pages? My76Strat (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case, you're off track. User request in userspace has always been viewed as housekeeping, and it has always been acceptable for an admin to delete their own pages in userspace. You'll find most admins that use multiple userspaces have done it at one time or another to delete sandboxes that they have finished with. The only time it would be a problem in my opinion would be if an admin deleted their talkpage, as usertalk pages are not supposed to be deleted anyway. If you want to get the practice changed, you can make a suggestion at Village pump (policy), but I suspect you'd need a good reason for why one might want to prevent a page being deleted in userspace for it to get any traction. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Elen, here. Speedy deletions per U1 and G7 are pretty much the most uncontroversial tasks an admin can perform – with the caveat that a sysop should not be deleting his own talk page. There is no point in asking another admin to delete a subpage in my userspace, when a. I'm sure he will delete it and b. I could do it myself. I think it can only increase the backlog of pages waiting to be speedily deleted... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. It is not a big issue, more of a peeve perhaps. And yes I had observed that it is relatively common. I also understand that it is regarded as routine housekeeping. I have a slightly different opinion, but it amounts to small potatoes. Again however, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. My76Strat (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, to be clear, are you saying there is no conflict with the "irrevocable release of one's contributions" and the ability of a user to delete sub-pages, having no other endorsement? Salvio, you rightfully mention that a significant effort by admins are these kinds of user requested deletions; the distinction is that their request is endorsed, and I feel it is unlikely that you would delete content that you believed was suited for and relevant to the encyclopedia. In fact, what would be a valid reason for an admin to decline deleting s user's sub-page? I do believe, at minimum when an admin deletes their own contributions, it should be flagged to a queue to be endorsed properly. How wrong are these notions? My76Strat (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strat, this horse is dead. You could write an excellent article in your userspace, tag it U1, and any admin will delete it. Indeed, all you need to do is blank the page and it will automatically be deleted. There is no conflict with irrevocable release, because the current policies grant that courtesy to editors. You release it, but Wikipedia has chosen not to exercise its right to retain everything. If you want to get that policy changed, you are free to start a discussion at the appropriate place.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I think you have misunderstood my question. You see a horse when you ought see a zebra. I'm simply asking and admin I trust, is it white with black stripes or black with white stripes. And now I know. My76Strat (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete a user sub-page[edit]

Hi Salvio. Could you please delete User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper/Sandbox incl. the talkpage. I just moved it to a new location. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneI was passing and have deleted both. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks Elen :) TMCk (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loose ends[edit]

Hi Salvio. Now that the ArbCom case is over, this can probably be re-deleted, no? 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for reminding me! I have just deleted the page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick work! :) 28bytes (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my user talk page[edit]

Please explain this edit. There seems no attempt to provide any explanation in either the edit summary or on the talk page itself. Is the bot not properly authorised? Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Referring me to such a long and involved discussion is not a good reply in my opinion, but since you've asked me to read it I have. Here's what it tells me.
Aaron Brenneman decided that there was a problem where none actually existed, and then blocked the bot in response, requiring a lot of work by others to clean up. We all make mistakes, I guess it looked urgent. No complaint so far.
Aaron then requested a mass rollback, and so you reverted my talk page, in clear violation of the spirit at least of my wishes expressed in the notice at the top of it. I haven't checked the timestamps to see exactly when, and still don't understand why, nor why you gave no meaningful edit summary. Surely it wasn't all that urgent?
There was then a great deal of discussion involving both you and Aaron Brenneman. By both of your accounts, everyone else was to blame. That discussion is now closed.
Part of the cleaning up involved restoring the section that the bot had rightly posted to my talk page, and which you had wrongly removed. This cleanup was in turn reverted by another user, this time with an edit summary of Not your userspace. They have since apologised.
I realise that those involved are all volunteers of good standing and mostly admins, but I think there are lessons to learn. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hey. Sorry, but why did you reverted my talk page? Cheers — Tomica (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot Flesh[edit]

New to wikipedia, but this doesn't seem normal. Adding a few legitimate additions to an entry, and one person keeps changing them/undoing my updates for no apparent reason, so I change them back as I'm one of the very few people with any knowledge and one particular subject.

A user by the name of Backtable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0ProoN0 (talk • contribs)

First of all, please do stop reverting. You are now engaged in an edit war and that is a disruptive way of solving a content dispute. That said, I undestand you may think you are absolutely correct and the other editor is just plain wrong, but on Wikipedia we try to solve content dispute through discussion and consensus. Trying to win an argument by reverting the other editor will only get you blocked.

Now, if you think the other editor is wrong, start a thread on the article's talk page and try to come to a compromise. Should it now work, you can try Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, such as opening a thread at a noticeboard or start a request for comments. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_46&oldid=1148820479"