User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 47

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

Columbo[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Columbo, List of Columbo episodes". Thank you.

TUSC token d715e58608b0dfe6d2110285d0a28087[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Talk pages[edit]

Can you give me a link to the guidelines concerning editing while a talk is still in session. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean... I fear there is not policy or guideline stating that, while a change is being discussed, it must stay out of the article – at least, I'm not familiar with any. I can point you to WP:BRD, which is just an essay, but it is commonly followed.

Personally, I always suggest to avoid edit warring: if an edit is really that inappropriate, someone will certainly undo it. In my opinion, one of the pros of following WP:DR is that it allows you to attract the attention of uninvolved editors who can support your point of view, provided, of course, it is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply wondering how legitimate it was to revert edits of someone who is directly aware of an ongoing talk of the talk page, but continues to edit the subject anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor routinely reverts other users' edits without disussing, then sometimes a short block is issued to get his attention and persuade him to start using articles' talk pages... This is somewhat rare, but it happens. In this case, however, the other editor was discussing the edits, but, at the same time, wanted them kept in the meantime. It is frustrating, I know from first-hand experience, but, nonetheless, the correct approach is to get more outside opinions, so that others too revert him. At that point, he either gets the point and stops or perseveres and, then, gets blocked. After all, it's not like FavorLaw's edits were not "dangerous" (were not BLP or copyright violations, for instance), so there really was no rush... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case opening[edit]

Hello! You were listed as a party to a content dispute at a post on the DRN. Per that discussion, I have opened a Mediation Cabal case here. If you feel you are no longer involved, please feel free to remove your name from the case page.

All discussion will take place on the case's talk page. Please read over the ground rules on the talk page, found here and put your sig below in the indicated spot. After that, and after you have watchlisted the page, please post a short statement in the section below 'Ground Rules' which describes your side of the dispute and what resolution you wish to see.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio: it may be a bit of niggling on my part, but would you mind openly withdrawing your involvement in the appropriate place and not just in the edit summary? I trust you perceive the bad impression this makes.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your withdrawal was not signed. You could just use 3 tildes if you want, but please sign it.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil Behavior[edit]

Hello, User:Hehest has a long history of displaying Kanndada language chauvinism. Recently, he reverted my removal of native scripts from lead (according to a recent RfC). My warning to him has resulted him in responding in a very uncivil manner calling me 'douchebag'. Please see this RicardoKlement (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just issued a stern warning. I'd have blocked this time around, but the diff was somewhat stale, which would have made my block punitive – something frowned upon, here –. Thanks for bringing that edit to my attention. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatia[edit]

Hi Salvio giuliano. Can we have this moved to Arbitration enforcement as per my comments here. Thank you, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea and I'd be inclined to proceed; however, to be sure I'm not messing up, I have just asked the Arbs by mail whether they agree or think it would be inappropriate. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you :) Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

I think ChronicalUsual is back again. Can we get the Sockpuppet investigation open again?

user:SuperMaher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuperMaher

SuperMaher was created just 2 hours after chronical was banned, and he is already and expert on how the Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in my response, but I had already gone to bed when you sent me this message... I see, however, that SuperMaher has been indeffed and that ChronicalUsual has suffered the same fate. Now we can only start playing whack-a-mole... And, should he become too disruptive, then we can also start semi-protecting the articles he targets... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help via stalking[edit]

The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
Thanks for the clarification on User talk:Whenaxis! These CSD tags can be tricky sometimes... MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks; I'm happy to have been of help. I have just added the barnstar to my collection. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:TeoBot[edit]

Please unbloked me . I want only get bot-flag in our wiki . I dont speak English very nice and can't make request from bot flag .--«(…°°…)» talk 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teodret. Unfortunately, for the moment, I cannot unblock TeoBot, because you are not authorised to run a bot yet. If you wish to do that, you should first submit a request for approval and, if it is successful, then you can start running your bot.

Until then, I cannot unblock the account because its username is a violation of Wikipedia's relevant policy. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand you--«(…°°…)» talk 12:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the story?[edit]

Hi, saw the post by Darkness Shines on the BLPN, spent the morning trying to rectify the article (overeffusive and overreffed, a bit OR, then DS went overboard tagging everything with cn templates or "fails verifiability" when in fact the sources actually supported the claims). Now, you have deleted the post, can you give me some background info, I havce tried to reach out to User:TopGun to show that I am not intent on edit-warring/destroying the article but I would like to know something about what I have just walked into. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to add, TG posted a link to an ANI discussion, apparently he's been a bit of an edit-warrior himself, could you clarify simply and in your own words? Just to add, that after engaging on talk pages with him, seems to be acting reasonably. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the BLPN post because it was made in violation of Darkness Shines' interaction ban. Due to a pattern of sub-optimal interaction between the two, they were recently banned from interacting with each other – and part of that restriction is that they're both prohibited from commenting on each other's actions. It was merely a "procedural" action; you're welcome to restart a BLPN thread about the very same article, if you believe there are BLP issues. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I hate walking into potential minefields (BLP is very explosive) without forewarning. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case[edit]

Just in case if you'd like to follow up on the discussion related to the block you made.. [1] - I made a full clarification to Nyttend also linking the deletion discussion. I had improved the sources of my text and was not restoring it to neo title, and the recreation was expected as per the deletion discussion. Nyttend proposed to move my draft and merge so that the IBAN wasn't violated. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‎Mereger?[edit]

Hasn't the effect of the merger been that neither party can edit the page now? Several other people have been editing the page, so it doesn't seem to me that this gave TopGun an unfair advantage. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a totally unrelated matter, your editnotice has an extra space and comma: "Hello, , and welcome". Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somehow it gave him an advantage as you put your adminship behind his post. Couldn't he just have posted it himself if he came to that article not through DS (although DS created the article)? JCAla (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, thanks, I have just fixed it. It's just that, between the two commas, my editnotice contained a {{REVISIONUSER}}, which apparently no longer works...

That said, in general, two interaction-banned users can edit the same article, provided they do not undo each other's edits. Of course, in this case, considering the shortness of the article's history, the end result is pretty much that: neither of them can edit the article any longer; however, I personally believe that the unintended result of the history merge is that TopGun got the upper hand in the content dispute – which is what got Darkness Shines going –, as the version which Darkness Shines can no longer edit is the one he prefers and that's rather similar to the one which was deleted after the AfD... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Darkness Shines prefers the version that's closer to what was deleted at AFD? Both geopolitics and interaction bans are outside my field of interest, so I'm quite confused; I thought my action would prevent fighting at this page and improve a stub at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, TopGun and Darkness Shines have a long history of sub-optimal interaction – and the hostility between Indians and Pakistanis does not help – which is what led to the imposition of a WP:1RR first and, then, an interaction ban. TopGun created the article about Pakophilia and Darkness Shines, arguing that it was full of original research, nominated it for deletion. After the article was deleted, Darkness Shines created a new stub about the topic, which was short but sourced. TopGun had you histmerge his own version to Darkness Shines' and this version contained the same OR that led to the deletion of the original article; the problem, in Darkness Shines' opinion, is that a. he can no longer edit the article he created and b. he cannot remove TopGun's additions, despite the fact they violate WP:V and WP:BLP, in his opinion – because all edits would be a violation of the interaction ban – . Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had no choice but to ask at ANI about what to do with such a situation when an article I had on my to-do list as a red link since quite some time is created with IBAN in between. Nyttend suggested history merge and it seemed a good option without violating... both our intentions were to stay away from the IBAN. I had disagreements on the content issues, but another user has removed it and I have agreed to his removals. But I think WP:OWN shouldn't be in the way of improvement. I also tried to add as much sources as I could while it was in my userspace (most of which I moved from main articles with attribution so I don't have to be held responsible for everything). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

On your AUSC appointment, I'll probably have some oversighting work for you in the near future (if you will use the tools for normal oversighting business too). :) The Helpful One 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congrats!

Unfortunately, I'll not be able to help you with the oversight requests, because I think it would be inappropriate for a member of the audit subcommittee to act as an oversight or checkuser. I believe I should avoid giving the impression of being biased. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, also do you happen to use IRC? The Helpful One 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have occasionaly used it (the account creation channel, mainly), but I had never applied for a cloak. I have just done it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, you look good in that cloak Salvio - lol - congrats on yr successful application - a good result for you and for the en wiki project. - thanks - Youreallycan 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashruth Council of Canada Page[edit]

Thank you for blocking the user perpetrating the defamation. However now it is continuing via an IP address. I feel this is considered sock-puppetry. Is there any way to block this. There is continued ad hominem attacks. These have escalated since the user was blocked. Thank you Applesandhoney (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just semied the page for a fortnight; should this editor be back after protection expires, I'll be glad to extend it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for that. I couldn't change the content back until it was blocked as the edit only lasted a minute or so before it was attacked again. Applesandhoney (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you for catching the obvious sock-puppetry of this user. I see you blocked them indefinitely. Applesandhoney (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please extend the lock on this page. We now have another IP address posting the same content. The IP user is also engaged in sock-puppetry. Applesandhoney (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Copied from JamesBWatson (talk) page. As the original administrator to get involved can you discuss this with him.

"Thank you for protecting this page from vandalism. This page has a history of blocks. A user Koshervigilante (talk) was blocked for defamation of living persons. That user was blocked by administrator Salvio. The page was reverted by an IP with the same info and Salvio semi-ed it for 2 weeks. During that time a new user Kashrus-vigilante popped up in its place. Salvio blocked this user as well for sock-puppetry. After the 2 weeks were up and there were continued IP attacks (Just reverts of the original defamation.) the page was semi-ed for a month. Just 4 days later an account called Applesandhonee reverted it one more time. This account is a single purpose account that is a sock of Koshervigilante copying his original venom to this page. He was caught by a vandalism bot ClueBot_NG which in turn flagged him and you blocked him for 48 hours. Can you check the history of these edits and find a way to end this puppeteer. How can this page be protected form him? Thank you." Applesandhoney (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked the user indefinitely, because his username was a blatant attempt to impersonate you. I have also tagged him as a sock. That said, there is very little we can do: the article was already semi-protected – and I don't want to fully protect it just yet – and he busted autoconfirmed to edit it. I fear we'll just have to play whack-a-mole... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I appreciate all you efforts. Applesandhoney (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email message[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.

Trijnstel (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines[edit]

Given the circumstances, you might want to consider unblocking or reducing the block on DS. It looks like he was trying to get some attention to the fact that he was out maneuvered, possibly in good faith, by TopGun. I'm not totally up to speed on the history of these two editors so I might have overlooked other things but, based on this alone, DS's actions look relatively innocent. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm about to unblock him, but I'll emphasise once again to him that he's supposed to completely ignore TopGun's actions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Though, now that I've studied the past a little, the prognosis, as Seinfeld would say, is negative :) --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ifield[edit]

Regarding Arora, I remember youooo. This is the one that you asked me to remind you about, which had previously been semi-p'd for 6 months. IP geolocates to the same place, and has the same ISP. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sitush. I have just semied the page for a year. Let's hope this user is not that patient. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding IBAN[edit]

If WP:OR is added to an article, and has then been modified by another user, is it a violation to remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Salvio, I assume DS is referring to the article Pro-Pakistan sentiment and the passage about "The like or interest of Pakistan is the opposite of Pakophobia,[1] Pakistanophobia[2] or Anti-Pakistan sentiment, which is the fear and dislike of things concerning Pakistan.[citation needed]". Please see my post(s) at the Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment#Over referencing.
I don't know what I have walked into and I am not taking sides, just tried to make the article more palatable and wiki-like, but from my experience over the last 48 hours Top Gun is willing to engage and accept Talk Page discussion whereas I find DS's attitude hostile and pointy. I don't see how saying "the like or interest of Pakistan is the opposite of Pakophobia" is OR, it's pure common sense based on what the word(s) mean, in the two dictionary references I left they specifically give examples of Francophilia (love of French things) and Anglophobia (a dislike of English or British things).
Er, maybe a quiet word in DS's ear, for someone who has just been unblocked their behaviour seems very "warrior-like". Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is actually Anti-Pakistan sentiment I am referring to here, specifically the usage of a term not supported by the sources as a pejorative. And yes, I already know I am a tad brusque, I am working on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a related matter, how about this for a pointy edit, given the archiving set up by this. Honestly, these two need a full-blown topic ban, not just an IBAN. The collateral damage of RfCs, umpteen different drama boards and niggling post-ban comments, plus pointy stuff as per the example in the diffs here ... It is also having quite a chilling effect, I think, in that it will be discouraging others from getting involved. Despite CaptainScreebo's note above, I am finding TG to be as tendentiously awkward, wikilawyer-ish and POV-y as DS. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just saying that in the relatively few contacts that I have had with these two editors, TG actually listened and accepted my observations/changes. But obviously, I am not following this editor around to all the articles he's working on so I don't have the full picture. Considering the vehemence and pointy behaviour that I have witnessed so far, I agree with Sitush's comments about a topic ban for both of them, as they appear to be highly antagonistic, and Sitush is right in saying that it will drive people away, I have far better things to do on WP than get involved in DR, ANI reports and so on. I get the feeling that uninvolved editors will get dragged into taking sides, which is obviously to the contrary of a collegial, NPOV atmosphere for working on articles. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know who set up the archiving, it was dead since ever and not working. I fixed it... but now that I know that it could be a violation, I've self reverted it (though it is dead again now and starts from 7th archive page?). Any one can revert my self revert to the fixed version since the previous archiving never worked. Sitush if you don't want to assume good faith, dont do it and don't assume bad faith either, but do give me the due benefit of doubt. You should have informed me first. That is tendentious to get me a block for something that was unintentional. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the vote of confidence Sitush, I love ya baby. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness Shines, that would be a violation, yes. If TopGun adds OR to an article and someone else then modifies it, if you remove said original research, you're still changing TopGun's addition. It doesn't matter it was modified by a different editor. I've already repeated this an incredible number of times, but disengage. Wikipedia has millions of articles and thousands of highly active users. If TopGun is really that disruptive, his behaviour will be noticed and dealt with. You seem to be on a crusade against his original research.

I had hoped the interaction ban between the two of you would solve the countless problems caused by your interaction, but, ever since it was imposed, the number of ANI threads about either of you has increased. This really boggles the mind!

Please, don't even look at TopGun's edits. Start really ignoring him. If you cannot keep away from him I fear that the only solution will be a topic ban, since the interaction ban is obviously not working... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wanted clarification was all. Am minding my own business henceforth. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as a show of how things shall be I hatted my query at ANI. No more drama. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's appreciated! Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_47&oldid=1154932293"