This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Salvio giuliano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


2018 Bangabandhu Cup[edit]

Hey Salvio! Can I have some time of yours to discuss something?--Anbans 585 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Always glad to be of help, if I can. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It's about this discussion we had on 2018 Bangabandhu Cup. There was a conflict regarding the issue that what should the Philippines be called, should it be called Philippines or Philippines 'B'. The other person seems to say that since the team is not the full national team, due to absence of many of the senior players (which is correct), we should call the team Philippines 'B'. I on the other hand argued that regardless of which players are playing the team should be called Philippines as according to all the media sources and sports websites, including the Federation's official website states that the caps and debut goals have been scored etc. That's what I made of this excerpt from this article - "The Philippine Men’s National Team secured the top spot in Group B after a tight 1-0 win over host Bangladesh last Friday 5 October 2018 at the Sylhet District Stadium in Sylhet, Bangladesh." here. So what do you think we should do with this article?--Anbans 585 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "B" should not be included. In general, we follow what reliable sources say and if all the RS we found refer to the team as "Philippines" instead of "Philippines (B)", then that's what we should do as well. I understand that they brought their second team and, while I think that this should be included in the article (and, at the moment, it is), to then conclude that, in the light of that, the team should be called "Philippines (B)", in my opinion, would be original research. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The person is currently blocked for a day, what should I do if he starts to do the same thing again in the future?--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Assuming the other two editors do not start edit warring again, once their blocks are over, you should treat this like a content dispute and follow these steps. Basically, discuss the issue with them; if that fails, try asking others, for instance posting at one of the noticeboards or starting a request for comment. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help.--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

AE[edit]

Hi Salvio. I was going to leave my thoughts on that AE, but noted that you just closed it with the conclusion "No violation, although the edits skirted fairly close to the line". I have a few details to add, if I may, and I'll keep it short hopefully – given Orientls' involvement on this talk page since at least July, this report did not make sense. In the report, Orientls clarified they were not seeking a santion, but then used 'topic ban violation' in the same sentence, which doesn't inspire much confidence. They also chose to file the AE despite knowing, and choosing not to point out there, that I was permitted by admin BU Rob13 to edit the article. I don't know if I'm expected to have this engraved in stone:

@Mar4d: After a complete review of the situation and a review of your sanction itself, I do not object to your participation in that discussion. You are restricted from edits or pages about the conflict, which is actually narrower than a usual topic ban. This page is not about the topic, and neither was your edit, so even if the discussion broaches on the topic, you're very technically fine. Related to this, I've indefinitely topic banned Sdmarathe from this topic area. I'm extremely unimpressed with both the current and previous attempts to remove opposition from discussions through various processes [1]

Ivanvector had echoed some sentiments on the RfC recently elsewhere. I'm also going to refer comments by power~enwiki not too long back.

My comments on that article and talk page have been completely limited to the discussion on Pakistan only, and finding neutral, reliable sources on the inclusion of Pakistan. The 'conflict' TBAN never came up, nor have I anywhere breached into that area. I'd also like to add that Pakistan has been listed on regional power since at least 2009 as others pointed out on the talk page, so repeatedly (not just once) and deliberately trying to bring up the TBAN, making off-topic references to it, in an issue and discussion that is of little relevance to it, to me, is WP:POINTY and really stretching the limits of weaponizing TBAN restrictions. That especially on an article which I'm not banned from in the first place.

I'm getting tired of these below-the-belt ploys, and I somewhat hope these repeat frivolous filings would be looked into too because this also, IMO, qualifies as disruptive. It's obviously too late to comment on the AE, but I thought I'd pen some of my final concerns just to convey my perspective. I suppose my only question, in defence, would be: how was this AE by Orientls, and some of the misleading statements in there, any different to what another user tried only a few days back? Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'll admit my mistake: I thought you had already commented in the AE thread when I closed it. In general, I try not to comment on those thread before the user has had his say, but, in this case, somehow I missed you hadn't commented.
On the merits, BU Rob13 basically said what I was saying, that you did not violate your topic ban, even if your edits "were fairly close to the line" (my words) or "even if the discussion broaches on the topic" (this words). I think it would, generally speaking, be wiser for editors under restrictions to give a very wide berth to the topic area they were restricted from, but that's my personal opinion and, as long as you don't breach your topic ban, you will not be sanctioned further.
On why I haven't sanctioned Orientls, well, in my opinion, a sanction would not have been warranted here. I know that Rob topic banned Sdmarathe for pretty much the same thing, but, as I said when he appealed to AE, I found the sanction heavy-handed. It was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, but not one I agreed with. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Briancua[edit]

Dear Salvio thank you for your intervention on the edit-warring notice board regarding User:Briancua. I probably didn't express myself very well and probably didn't use the right formatting. But it was out of desperation really. I am absolutely miserable at the way Briancua has been behaving over a range of articles and I don't know what to do anymore. I've been editing for years and enjoy it, but I've been put off now to the extent that I'm not sure I want to edit anymore. Briancua is simply partisan in pushing a biased conservative religious agenda - he/she uses the cover of pointing to various bits of contradictory guidance in whatever way suits them to make sure their point of view is the one that always triumphs. He/ she is determined to do whatever they can to make sure editors like me that highlight concerns or challenge them are ultimately disgraced and banned. There is no reasoned or rational discussion, there is no hint of compromise. There is no suggestion of them making edits that are for AND against the position of the Catholic Church. I tried an ANI but no-one seemed to respond. I'm sorry for unburdening myself here - it's probably wrong of me. I think maybe it's more sensible if I just take a long break. Apologies again.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you tried to go to ANI and nobody responded, then there are two chances: either your complaint was unactionable or you failed a. to specify what the problem was, b. to clarify what the administrative measure you wanted was, or c. to provide clear evidence. Speaking personally, if your complaint was similar to the one you posted at ANEW, then I'm not surprised people did not respond to it: it was very confusing and not easy to follow at all. If you think there is something wrong with Briancua's editing, my advice would be to start throwing together a complaint that's easy to understand, where you clarify a. why his conduct is problematic, b. what you want administrators to do, and c. you show disruption, using diffs. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)