User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 35

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

The Signpost: 17 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wfc united[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent MfD close of Bir Pratik recipient[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_35&oldid=1143284327"