Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/General archive: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 582: Line 582:
== muhammad al bukhari ==
== muhammad al bukhari ==


muhammad al bukhari was heterodox and i proved that from bukharis own book
muhammad al bukhari was heterodox and it was proven from bukharis own book


unflavoured just wants his own version of bukhari
unflavoured just wants his own version of bukhari

Revision as of 07:51, 23 December 2011

“
→ Tenka Fubu
("Conquer all under heaven")
”
— Today's Motto of the Day

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wfc united

I know it's picky, but this was incorrectly closed as keep.

I would not have asked, but the Please do not modify it scares me :D

Thoughts? --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 12:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed correcyly. In these cases, it's clear the closing editor made a mistake, so you can either let them know so that they'll fix it or fix it yourself; do not be scared by the Please do not modify it . If you wish, you can chalk it up to WP:IAR... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken deletion of User:Kleinzach

That was a mistake. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rich Kazenga/Sandbox, Kleinzach only !voted in that discussion. His page wasn't up for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. --Kleinzach 23:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an idiot... I deleted the whole bunch of subpages using Twinkle and somehow wrongly ticked his userpage too... Thanks for your note, I've undone my mistake. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, though I would have appreciated a note from you explaining what had happened. I was puzzled. --Kleinzach 23:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need some assistance

Ciao Salvio. If you have a spare minute, would you mind help me assessing a band's notability based on sources a new editor left at User talk:SoWhy#DNR? Although I am half-Italian myself, I am not as fluent in the language as a native speaker and thus I'd appreciate your help. From a first glance, some of those sources meet WP:RS and should be sufficient to establish the band's notability but I really need someone to verify that. Regards SoWhy 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, but at the moment I have a deadline threateningly hovering over me so I can't help you straight away (I hope I'll be able get to it tomorrow night; otherwise,I'll surely give you an answer on Sunday). Again, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, don't worry. I'll let them know that it might take some time. Thanks in advance for your help :-) Regards SoWhy 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. There's been a reply to your reply on my talk page which I somehow seem to have missed until now. Would you mind having a look? Regards SoWhy 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order not to clutter up your talk page, I replied on Laura's talk page; I didn't want to bombard you with orange bars. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help. :-) Regards SoWhy 16:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Helping Hand Barnstar
For being so helpful without "whining" SoWhy 16:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar; I've just added it to my userpage. I was glad to be of help, though not really swiftly. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing ban proposal

The Admin's Barnstar
Well, for closing the obvious SNOW accepted proposal on banning JAT6634. No brainer really, but thanks for all other things too. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs (The meta-side of vandalism) • 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar! I've just added it to my userpage! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MCH

Up that block to revoke email; the man behind those accounts has sent nastygrams through Wikipedia's email function. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

account creator

Thank you for your swift an prompt reply. However, don't you think that after being suspended for 1 year and then appealing the suspension and then creating 6 accounts in one day (correctly I hope, you can check) is ok? I mean, it is quite annoying to have to wait 24 hours after creating just 6 accounts for 2 whole weeks, is it possible to get the deadline shortened? Also, I was monitoring the interface for 4 hours swiftly responding to account creating requests and seeing who had logged on. In the whole 4 hours, I only say about 2 people log in, and then they logged out a few minutes later. Puffin Let's talk! 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to create request #69292, but I have to wait 24 hours. It's really annoying. Puffin Let's talk! 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been unable to handle request #69293 because of this restriction. Puffin Let's talk! 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have again reached the limit, I really need the user flag, this is the third time now. Puffin Let's talk! 11:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise, but please try to look at this issue from my standpoint: you were suspended a year ago and unsuspended three days ago. In these three days you've only created 12 accounts. They are far too few for me to assess your experience... I don't doubt you think you're ready, but, considering that accountcreator allows you to override the title blacklist and to create accounts with usernames similar to existing ones, I must make sure. You're not the only user active on the interface, after all; you don't have to close all requests. Just take it easy, keep at it for a couple of weeks, show you understand the various nuances of the upolicy and then come back and I'll be happy to grant you this flag. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reached the limit again today, can you check my requests (except number 1, that was last year), to see if they are okay? Thank you. Puffin Let's talk! 15:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to grant you this flag just yet, I have, however, no objections whatsoever to your asking an uninvolved admin on WP:PERM/ACC. I will not comment on your request and will not action it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that in viloation of WP:CANVASS? Puffin Let's talk! 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, to my knowledge it's not. Feel free to do that. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to do that, I reached the limit for a fifth time today, how many more times must I reach the limit? Puffin Let's talk! 20:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of how many accounts you've created; my requirements to be granted this flag are a. experience and b. need. You apparently have the need, but I'm not sure as to the experience. For instance, these closures are just wrong, in my opinion: here what do you have any evidence that the two users were the same the person, aside for the fact they were sharing the same IP? And, here, what evidence do you have that the requester was a recent vandal? That's what gives me pause... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By evidence of the IPs contributions, I could see that it had been vandalising recently, which led me to the decision I made, after consulting the guide and the IP was not shared from the WHOIS report, I assumed that they had lost the password, after consulting the guide, I decided that dropping the request was the best course of action. By evidence of the WHOIS report, the IP was not shared, therefore, by consulting the guide carefully before taking any action, I decided that the best course of action was to password reset. If I am wrong, the guide does not specifically outline every single scenario you will come into, and sometimes, you have to use your best judgement or common sense to assume what to do, I respect your opinion, but my defending statement seems to argue back. Puffin Let's talk! 09:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of shared IP addresses; what I was thinking of were dynamic IPs: you did not create an account because another request received six days earlier from the same IP had already been satisfied. Using the Whois report, did you conclude with a good degree of certainty that the IP was not dynamic? Regarding the vandal, I believe the proper course of action would have been to assume good faith and create the account, keeping an eye on them — there are exceptions, of course: a user who vandalises, gets blocked and ten minutes later requests an account should be ignored -. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the mistakes, because everyone makes mistakes sometimes when the guide does not specifically outline every single scenario one will run into. I would go and create the account, but I can't because of the restriction, can you do it for me? Puffin Let's talk! 11:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio was absolutely correct to err on the side of caution, and my granting you the accountcreator flag should not be construed as lack of endorsement of his judgement. I reviewed your logs on the tool and after consideration, I decided that you have indeed learned from your experience. You should, however, continue to exercise the utmost of caution when creating accounts, especially those with similar usernames. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Salvio giuliano! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hello Salvio,

I just finish write an article on New Breeds Adult Store and I followed the guidelines to a tee. For some reason I got flagged. Can you remove this flag please.

Thank you.Dpisnice (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)David P Fenelus[reply]

The article you created looked like promotion and was, therefore, deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11.

Furthermore, its subject did not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements — under Wikipedia's rules, only notable entities qualify for inclusion and they are defined as something that has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources —.

So, in short, I'm really sorry, but I cannot undelete your article. However, if you can prove New Breeds Adult Store meets Wikipedia's requirements, you can recreate the page as a Userspace draft and then ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "User:J.reed/Sandbox/PATCO" (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace)

Please note, this was not a request by me to delete a page in my own user space. j.reed (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page after it had been nominated for deletion; under speedy deletion criteria, usually, the blanking of a page by its creator equals a request to delete it, I deleted the page under U1. However, even if you did not intend to request deletion, the page would have been deleted all the same as a result of the mfd, which had already run for a full week. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Recent MfD close of Bir Pratik recipient

You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kemdad/Abdul Malek Birprotik today. Since then the article creator has been working on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Abdul Malek Birprotik, where I have now left a note for who ever reviews before it hits mainspace. The creator has also set up [[Category:Bir protik]] and it seems hopelessly messy.

What do we do about someone who keeps ignoring the procedures/consensus etc? - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: they have also created a dupe of Bir Protik today, probably in response to recent criticisms on the talk page + edits to the article. I have just nominated Bir protik as A10. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... and they're also quite clearly (and probably deliberately) editing while logged out as User:124.6.229.33. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies stepped in after more of the same. Kemdad now blocked for a week & an eye is being kept on the IP. Sorry to trouble you. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedily deleted the page per G4 and closed the mfd; I apologise for the tardiness of my reply (sigh, real life is way too demanding lately). Thanks for your note, Sitush! Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Protection

Hello Salbio gialiano - we last conversed many months ago...

I would like to request protection for a template which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Singapore_MRT_stations

If you look into the history log, you will find mass blankings which were conducted over a certain period of time. While they may not be extreme or in anyway malicious, it is simply annoying to repeatedly undo the change.

Regards,

Seloloving (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi-protected the template for three months; I hope this will be enough... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :)

Seloloving (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of wfgiuliano user page

Thank you for deleting my user page so promptly. I had to make that request for privacy reasons. I noticed, unsurprisingly, that you have the same last name as me. Are you responsible for all articles whose titles contain the word "giuliano" or what is just one hell of a coincidence?Wfgiuliano (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a weird coincidence: when you nominated the page for deletion, it appeared in this category, which I keep an eye on. So I got there and deleted it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Redwall

Hi, Salvio!

I'm a participant on Redwall-related articles, and I want to work on making Portal:Redwall better. I noticed you deleted it per consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Redwall. Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of the deletion discussion until about a day ago, and I was unable to put in the work to try to save the portal.

I was wondering if you would be willing to provide me a copy of the Portal in my sandbox (like User:Matthewrbowker/Sandbox/Portal:Redwall). I will be working on improving the portal and reorginizing it, but I don't want to have to deal with a time limit.

Thank you very much! ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've restored the portal — and its various subpages — and moved the whole bunch to your userspace. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 23:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

.--Onewhohelps (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MY EDIT

I'M SORRY BUT YOU DELETED ONE OF MY EDITS AND I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT I SAID!!! I KNEW IT WAS'NT INAPPROPIATE.

I rollbacked this edit (it was more than a year ago, however), which was indeed inappropriate... Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler

Your assumption about Fowler&fowler is wrong. Please see this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=459421228 Pritzker (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me apologise for the tardy reply; that said, you are definitely right: that was not an isolated incident... I'm now keeping an eye on the user, however, and I've warned him that those rollback reversions were inappropriate; should he persist, I'll certainly sanction him. I will not do so now as that would only be punitive (whereas all sanctions are supposed to be preventative) and I take him at his word when he undertakes not to misuse the flag any more. Should I miss an inappropriate rollback, please do feel free to report it either here on on ANI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

HDtracks wikipedia page banned

Hello, we are trying to set up a objective page for our audio company called HDtracks. It is the number one high definition audio company and we still do not have a wikipedia page. We can't set one up because it seems that it has been removed.

The page leads to this contact form. If you could let us know what's going on that would be fantastic. We'd really like to see a page for our company up. Thanks please e-mail this e-mail below.

You shouldn't be writing about your company in the first place, chummer. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you got here, as it appears it was not I who deleted the page; however, the article was deleted twice under speedy deletion criterion A7 as it failed to indicate how HDtracks is significant or important. Aside from familiarising yourself with the guideline Jéské Couriano so kindly provided, I'd like to invite to review Wikipedia notability requirements — as only notable entities qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia —. If you believe you meet that threshold, my advice would be to create an account and then start a userspace draft and, then, ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JAT6634

Dear Salvio Giuliano

This is User:JAT6634 aka James Harrison I promise to make no more accounts I do give up I completly apoligise for what I have done sorry mate. I am only going to use Wikipedia for information that I need Sorry

James Harrison.

I'm sorry, but I cannot do anything, even though it was I who closed the ban discussion; you were banned by the community and no one admin can unban you. Only the community and Arbcom can. If you really wish to get back to editing constructively, you just have to wait at least six months without socking and then ask for the standard offer. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly fine not editing all I'll do now is use wikipedia for information. Sorry! :)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding copyright content to a page

hello

You recently cleared my block. thanks. I own the copyright to the image 'the hands resist him' I normally get requests by many people asking to for permission to use the image so I really need to add this information to the page, can I do that?

Regards

Darren

You cannot place the copyright info in the article; you can place it on the file's page, I believe (though I don't usually edit in the File: namespace); my advice would be to ask on the Help desk, however, to make sure. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

HyperEdit

Hi, this is with regard to deletion of the Codelobster page and a related question. I am not the creator of that page, just a user of the software - in no way connected to the developers/company of the software. I was surprised to see that Codelobster does not have the notability required by Wikipedia and understand that is why it was deleted.

I just ran across this new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperEdit for another editor. I cleaned up a few sections in it which were more like usage tutorials, and a dead external link. I wanted to ask - In your opinion do you think this article meets the notability clause of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberajith (talk • contribs)

Admittedly, I've not followed WP:BEFORE, yet, but, at the moment, in my opinion, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as it does not seem to have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, but only a mention in one... Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

YGM

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AM

Hi First of all I want to express my apology that I didn't read all the policies and guidelines before doing the addition. I still haven't read. I did so because I was aware that I am adding a link that is extremely useful for the people who come to wikipedia searching about TOPIK. I didn't mean to do any advertising or something like that. The blog that I put the link of is one of the very few good resources available on net about TOPIK tests. I will read all the guidelines whenever I get time.. But I offer my apologies for the moment.. I won't repeat the mistake. Thank you

Regards, Satish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsatyarthi (talk • contribs)

No biggie. However, even though it might be useful, repeatedly adding external links on Wikipedia's entries is disallowed under WP:ELNO, although I appreciate you were doing it in good faith. Should you need anything, please do feel free to ping me. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for this! Best wishes, SuperMarioMan 12:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I have your userpage on my watchlist and am always happy to swoop down on vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New editor in a spot of bother

Hi Salvio. Could you possibly have a look at my advice here? It appears they have chosen one of their friends' name as a username, and that friend is not happy. Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good answer; they've not filed a rename request. Hopefully, all will be good, now. Cheers. -- Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you! ps: I've Edited a few of our comments for clarity.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem there; sometimes, I don't immediately realise that what I'm writing may make little to no sense to someone unfamiliar with Wiki-jargon... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erikeltic continued trouble

Would you be so kind as to explain to me why the vandalism report is now deleted, and why you suggest I take this to ANI? Which I think you know very well will do nothing for me? It's taken me all day just to get this far. I'm being persecuted and badgered. Djathinkimacowboy 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:AIV is only for persistent spammers and vandals and Erikeltic's edits do not constitute vandalism; therefore, your report was inactionable on AIV. If you feel harassed, you can start a thread on WP:ANI, as I suggested, but please be aware of WP:Boomerang. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MangoWong Block review - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; I see that MW has been blocked again, so I guess my input would be quite superfluous now... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regarding page you deleted under MfD in October

Hi, I just noticed you deleted userspace article per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Gebreezgiher back in October. I noted in the MfD nomination that there was an identical copy at the user:talk page as well, but it appears that slipped under the radar, could you please take a look at User Talk:Daniel Gebreezgiher and action as you see fit. Thanks. --ClubOranjeT 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped, thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Indentity confirmed

Hello Salvio - just a quick note to let you know that the Peter Greenaway account has been verified via OTRS. I will add the OTRS confirming ticket number to the talk page, but I was unsure whether you would like to lift the block or if you would prefer I do it...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just unblocked; thanks for your message: you were most kind! Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness you're around!

We're getting nailed by 4channers. Please keep an eye on AIV and RFPP, I've been sending stuff to both places. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I'm now moving on to WP:RFPP. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucapremier88

Hi there; could I ask you to look at the talkpage of this user, whome you recently blocked? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark outdoors

To: User:NawlinWiki, User:Salvio giuliano and User:Kinu

You are all admins. I'd like to point out what you did regarding Ozark outdoors. This was a poorly written article on a possibly notable subject (a medium-sized company that has existed for decades). It was written by User:Ozarkworld, a new editor who had done some research and written original copy on the subject. However, User:Ozarkworld was not aware wiki standards and rules. Here is what you did:

  1. User:NawlinWiki deleted the article without giving the creator any help with establishing notability despite User:Ozarkworld asking for help.
  2. User:Salvio giuliano gave User:Ozarkworld an indefinite block.
  3. When User:Ozarkworld appealed the ban giving a reasonable explanation for his or her username, User:Kinu declined the appeal because User:Ozarkworld also said something in the appeal that he didn't like.

Great work guys. Now rather than us having a new editor User:Ozarkworld has left wikipedia never to come back. Delete and block are not the only things admins are able to do. Sometimes you could try engaging with new editors who do not know the rules.

(PS. Dissent is permitted. Please don't block me) --Bucephalus (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm definitely sorry the user in question felt bitten and chose to leave Wikipedia for good, I believe my actions were reasonable and in keeping with current policy; accounts whose usernames run afoul of WP:U are routinely blocked without warning and {{softerblock}} is as unbitey as humanly possible (it welcomes the user to Wikipedia, explains that the only reason for the block is the username and invites him to create a new account or to appeal the block if he believes that it was imposed in error); many people contact me by email or ask to be unblocked to ask for a rename... In short, I'm really sorry this user took offence at my block, but I don't believe I acted improperly. That said, I firmly believe that criticism, when expressed civilly, is always useful, so do not fear any retaliation from me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

User talk:GalingPinas

Hi Salvio. Just a note that the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required says "in general, if WP:COMPETENCE applies to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so". Possibly we need an advice essay with a less insulting title that could be used as an explanation for editors who get blocked for these reasons, but in the absence of such an advice page, it's best to use that link with care.

(I don't disagree with the block itself, this person seems to be extremely difficult to communicate with, and plenty of people have tried.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that WP:CIR suggests that it's not really appropriate to bluntly tell a user they're incompetent, but I always assumed it meant that it's quite inappropriate to block someone for "gross incompetence"... I tried to be kind, indicating that I had blocked them for "good faith inability to edit in a collegial fashion", though in the end I felt that link was necessary to clarify the meaning of my words... I really hope I did not offend them (and I'm sorry if I have), but, in the end, we also have WP:SPADE... After all, they had already received an awful lot of good advice, without actually listening... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Thank you for helping deal with the backlog at Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. Please note, however, that merely deleting the old versions of the iage doesn't remove it from the category - pleasse also remove the {{orphaned fair use revisions}} tag from the iage description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for your note. I remember reading that there was a bot that removed the tag automatically, but I can't remember where... I'll go back to the files and remove the tags momentarily! Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While such a bot doesn aparently exist, when a call for admins to clear out the category is made, and multiple admins are doing it at the same time, these images should be removed in real time. As far as I can tell, the bot doesn't actually do that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chauhan

Sorry about that. The issue has been hashed out only three months ago, and I am fairly sure that the present IP is the same person as was previously contesting the point about "most famous" etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and I agree that this user's edits were rather POV, but unfortunately that's not an exception to 3-rr; I'm sorry I protected the article, but I deemed that to be the best way to stop the edit war... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific guidance sought in recent matter of Fedora and Bowler hat

Regarding the two articles for which protection was requested, I made a new inquiry[1]. in all good faith. I'd like to be shown some guidelines so that I will not keep wasting everyone's time asking for protection. I have been able to protect pages in the past against such edits, and now I am refused each time with the same rejection. I'd be most obliged. Please let me know on my talk page if there is a guideline page or rules you could spell out for me. Thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a matter of admin discretion, there is no guideline indicating a bright line, a number of disruptive edits which make it compulsory for a sysop to protect a page. There is a rough guide to semi-protection, which is very useful.

In this case, the disruptive edits were only a few edits, were made by one or two IPs and were concentrated over the last day or so. Such low-level disruption is best handled through block. When there are multiple IPs wreaking havoc or when they are limited in number but the disruption they cause is stretched over a long period of time (or when vandals are hitting a WP:BLP), then protection is warranted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I'll print it out for ref. As you may have noted, I happen to think what the specific IP is doing qualifies as vandalism, and I made a report with the diffs. It was summarily deleted and the IP is not blocked, so it appears I either rang a false alarm or the IP is being given a chance without warnings from anyone but me. I thank you for the help and guidance in this matter. I'll keep vigilant and keep warning the IP; I know that IP will be back. Djathinkimacowboy 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This info is exclusively for you to see, for the moment. Regarding IP 58.160.128.164 may I call your attention to [2] (just this one diff to give you the overview), [3], [4] and [5]. If you will consult these, you will see what I mean. This is all new activity, the same old garbage. I have issued a new warning here[6]. Now, if everyone is going to say it's nothing, it doesn't merit any attention, what do you think the IP is going to do? And several editors are now watching for the vandalism and reverting it. Djathinkimacowboy 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are weird; they're unhelpful and disruptive, though I'm not sure they are technically vandalism. My suggestion, for cases like this, would be to go through the four warning levels (you can issue them rather easily using Twinkle) and, then, if they do not stop, to report them to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, should the case not be clear cut, where they'll be blocked. I'm not going to block them now because their edits are stale (the IP has not edited in a bit). Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, as to Twinkle, I do not have a full enough grasp and do not trust myself on that road. :O Agreed, the edits are just weird because this IP has a fetish about putting in the Three Stooges. We can't figure it out; there's no communication, nothing in the IP's edit summaries and I think this is some kid fooling round on his grandma's PC. :) It is obvious they are not in good faith because the IP is jumping to new articles now. Oh that reminds me: I can't really understand why you say it's stale: IP just edited agai within the last 24 hours if I am not mistaken, and it's the same old crazy edit. Just that one, single edit. How do we label this IP? Ip's been warned enough as far as I'm concerned anyway. Djathinkimacowboy 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since IPs can and do get reassigned and since blocks are preventative and not punitive, usually IPs are not blocked if their vandalism is detected many hours after they stopped, because we might end up blocking an innocent user who happens to edit from the same IP address. In this case, they haven't edited in 8 hours, so theyir edits are considered stale; if they start again, warn (maybe only using a level 2 and then a level 4) and report. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a relief, I see my browser's too old and will not support Twinkle anyway. I like to just keep daily watch over my articles where I work most. I can track these weird editors easily enough now. Frankly, I do not really understand what Twinkle is even after having read the page. Djathinkimacowboy 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle is an amasing tool, in my opinion. It allows you to do an incredible number of things in just two clicks: you can revert vandalism, warn vandals, welcome new users, tag, protect or delete new pages... It's awesome! Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP at it again here[7]. Fortunately intercepted and reverted. This was a particularly sneaky edit not noted in my watchlist due to the swiftness of its reversion. Prepared to block IP now? Or not? Djathinkimacowboy 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you be willing to contribute an opinion at the talk page about the addition of a trivia tag over the list of famous fedoras? I think it unnecessary and is no way to stop the IP's silly edits! Djathinkimacowboy 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Article semied for a week and vandal blocked for 24 hours. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA Report on Ngaymaisao

Sorry, my mistake Salvio. I'd thought that the word "gay" was a serious violation of username policy. Thank you for letting me know anyways. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, don't worry. Gay can be a violation of the username policy, but that's not always true. If it were used as part of a username meant to attack someone, for instance, then the account would be blocked on sight. In this case, howevever, the gay part appeared rather harmless, so there was no reason to block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok thanks anyways Salvio. Since this is the first time it's been brought to my attention that I need to be a bit more cautious before reporting a username I will be a bit more careful before reporting. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 13:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun kataria

Hi, I was under the impression that vandalism encompassed 'adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page'. As the content of the article in question was 'is a brown man' or something to that effect, I would think that G3 is as justifiable as A7? Thanks, - blake- 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To define vandal a user, they must be editing in bad faith; while I believe that article was definitely inappropriate (and, in fact, I deleted it), I'm not sure it had been maliciously created. That's why I preferred to use A7, a criterion which, in case they were a genuinely clueless newbie, is a bit less bitey than G3... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Applied Biologists

Hi Salvio,

I don't know if you remember but you helped me a few months ago with my page. I tried to transfer it to publish it but people have moved it and I can't find it - please can you help me? Thanks C

Yes, I remember you.

Your draft was here, but it was deleted as it appeared to be a copyright violation. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, so I cannot undelete it. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, my user talk page has been vandalized for the second time and my guess is that the idiot will start doing so for my drafts as well. See this. As such, i would appreciate it if you would do one of the following:

or;

  • Semi-protect my user talk page and drafts for a month.

Thank you. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offending IP blocked for 24 hours; the others are all stale. If this keeps up, I'll either impose increasing blocks or start semi-protecting your talk page (your draft was already protected by Ged UK). Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also extend the semi-protection to my drafts. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. When you no longer want/need it, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million. :-) Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to bother, but please do so for my userpage as well. See this. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done. I'm very efficient. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Damn efficient! Merry Christmas! :-) Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 13:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too! Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. 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) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fedora protection

I wanted to thank you. The article needs some protection and I am glad you assisted so patiently and diligently. That IP is clearly a vandal, in this case due to the IP's behaviour and not due to content of edit. Djathinkimacowboy 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: Salvio, do you think there is enough disruption to warrant protection of Porkpie hat and Bowler hat? Frankly, I hope this IP gets indefblocked for this. Djathinkimacowboy 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see another admin has already declined your request and I agree with him. Should this guy sock again, then I'll protect the article; so far, protection is not yet warranted... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider another block?

Salvio, you need to see this edit summary[[8]]. Djathinkimacowboy 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, look at the edit history[9] and recall you blocked IP58 for trouble. I'm beginning to smell a sock....The insulting edit summary was reinstated so that you might see it and then judge. Djathinkimacowboy 22:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See this[10] which is the start of the trouble. Note it occurred after the reversion of IP 58 who was blocked for disruption. I think IP 92.18.199.30 is a sock of IP 58.160.128.164. Investigate? Open SPI? I will await your feedback. Djathinkimacowboy 23:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it and I must say I laughed, even though I know I shouldn't... The IP was blocked for a week by another admin, which, by the way, is exactly what I would have done too. We do not indef IPs, but we certainly impose increasing blocks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree about my jumping the gun...I think I wanted to say that I hoped the indefblock day will come. And it is indeed a bit weird how these IPs pop up to do these kinds of things. I must say: I did not consider it a laughing matter. But I am with you. I didn't notice the week-long block; it's a great Christmas present to us all! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. Djathinkimacowboy 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and happy new year to you too! And thanks for the barnstar! It's much appreciated! Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was well earned and I think makes a nice 'stocking stuffer' too. :) Djathinkimacowboy 23:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope you get no more abusive messages from unidentfied IPs. Merry Xmas. 07:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor's Barnstar
For good humoured, rational editing decisions all the way round. Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, 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/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Please revert

[11]. Arbcom has not accepted the case, and closing a discussion before consensus has been reached does not benefit the project; it acts more like the bell at the end of a boxing round -- rather than having achieved anything positive, the parties just back to their "corners" until we do it all again. The conversation will end when folks run out of things to say. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo my action, I shan't revert you, but at the same time I'm not going to self-revert as I don't think it's useful to discuss the same issue in two places at the same time... If ArbCom rejects the case, then the discussion can be reopened, after all... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: MF case

I posted a link (in a "Statement from Ched" section) to the comment Malleus had regarding the case. I wasn't sure where to put it. Since you're the clerk - thought I'd drop it in your lap. feel free to move or refactor, or whatever should be done with it. Cheers and have a great holiday season. — Ched :  ?  17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's OK like that. I'm not going to reblock Malleus, but you did the right thing to link to it! Best wishes to you too! Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thought

Hi - Its really has got undertones of a pantomime - did you see Malleus's response to your - (unblocking for the limited purpose of responding to an Arbcom request) was (Please restore the block, as I will be taking no part in this farce.) - now what? Youreallycan (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest ignoring the request as he can not participate unblocked just as well as he can not participate while blocked; this would give him the opportunity to more gracefully change his mind. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I saw it, but I considered it venting, which is quite understandable, considering the situation, so I chose not to reblock Malleus, so that he can always change his mind. If he edits anything outside of his Arbcom case, I'll be the first to block, but, until then, I'm not going to hold his frustration against him. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no reason to re-block , but you have to see the farce. The blockee is unblocked and refuses to take his part in the panto and the focus of the arbitration moves to the admins actions - (the wicked sisters}. haha. Youreallycan (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've granted his block request, as I took seriously his concern that he might accidentally edit elsewhere and get in further trouble for it. If this was out of line or otherwise unhelpful of me, feel free to revert. Best, 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! And don't worry, I did not deem your action unhelpful; as I've written, I didn't want to reblock, but that was just my personal opinion. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gio Gonzalez

No offense, but I feel as though a semi-protection would have been perfectly appropriate. It's not a content dispute at all, but rather waiting for a trade to become official, which will happen once the subject passes a physical. Thus, protecting it fully for 24 hours is overly excessive for something as small as that.--Giants27(T|C) 02:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my opinion it would not as you there was a whole bunch of people edit warring and at least two parties to that edit war are autoconfirmed. So, if you can all play nice, then I'll be happy to unprotect the article, but, otherwise, this is the only way to stop the ongoing disruption. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history, it's mainly IP's, before one autoconfirmed user stepped in and started updating the article pre-maturely. I would love to say that I would play nice if that happens again, but if it's updated pre-maturely again, I would revert to protect the integrity of the article as it's not official at the moment. However, despite this, I do believe we have resolved the issue amongst ourselves, so semi-protection would work. Cheers,--Giants27(T|C) 9:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Since I saw you have apparently resolved the issued, I have just downgraded to semi. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request of Semi-Protection to article 'Rodgen Stewart

Hi i recently applied to get the Semi- protection on article Rodgen Stewart but i choose a template instead and it got declined by yourself. Is there anyway you can sort this out for me please?

Thank you

--Rodgenss (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on WP:RFPP; however, one of Wikipedia's founding pillars is that everyone can edit, including anonymous editors; for that reason, pages are not protected pre-emptively, but only when they're being disrupted by vandals or edit warriors. In this case, the article you created does not qualify for semi-protection, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ahhh i understand now.
Thank you for your help
--Rodgenss (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

muhammad al bukhari

muhammad al bukhari was heterodox and it was proven from bukharis own book

unflavoured just wants his own version of bukhari

unlock the page or just revert it to my version

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/General_archive&oldid=467309940"