Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 17

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

Restore

[edit]

Will you please restore "List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav/FAQ" because I placed the text of FAQ on the talk page of that article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake. Not necessary.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_de_Assheton

[edit]

I created a redirect at Robert_de_Assheton but you deleted it apparently because of vandalism. I'm just wondering if there was a misunderstanding similar to that which led to the deletion of Robert_Assheton. Please could you take a look at talk:Robert_Assheton and Robert_de_Ashton and let me know if it's ok to put a redirect there again? Thanks Johnroashton (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes; it was a misunderstanding, I'm really sorry: I thought it was some sort of not-so-clever vandalism. I've now restored the page; again, I'm sorry! Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Haha yes it is rather an unfortunate spelling, I'll give you that! Johnroashton (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Thursday

[edit]

I moved to to 'Friulian Revolt of 1511' - or at least I thought I did. I copied my 'Friulan'. Which is correct? I find the language spelled both ways. (I've put a redirect for for your Fat Thursday one too, and left Cruel Thursday.) Peridon (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found "Friulian", spelt with an "i" and was actually rather surprised to see we have an article about Friulan language, without the "i"... I'd say that the former is the more common spelling — which, by the way, is also the one that is listed on my vocabulary —, with the latter being an alternative, correct one. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll move it again. Peridon (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're wrong

[edit]

tis true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beninfield (talk • contribs)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander remedies

[edit]

If I'm not mistaken (you may want to ask Paul August about this), Remedy 1 does not pass and Remedy 1.1 does pass, because the two are offered as alternates. NW (Talk) 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in doubt regarding this, because remedy 1 and 1.1 are both technically passing, although, in the end, only remedy 1.1 will be enacted... I'll ask Paul August, however! Thanks for your note. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You both are correct and appear to be saying essentially the same thing. That is that both remedies are currently supported by a majority of arbs, so in that sense both remedies are "passing". However the two remedies have been offered as alternatives and 1.1 is preferred to 1, so 1.1 supersedes 1 and (assuming that the voting does not change) only 1.1 will "pass" and be enacted. The only question seems to be how best to indicate this in the implementation notes. There are several ways this might be done, and different clerks have done different things. For example I use the following format:
Passing:
Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4
Remedies: 1, 1.1, 2
Enforcements: 1
Failing:
Principles:
Findings of fact:
Remedies:
Enforcements:
Alternatives:
Principles:
Findings of fact:
Remedies: (1, 1.1)
Enforcements:
Superseded:
Principles: 1 by 1.1
Findings of fact:
Remedies:
Enforcements:
Passing and not superseded:
Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4
Remedies: 1.1, 2
Enforcements: 1
However more typically (I think) the following, more economical format has been used:
Passing:
Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4
Remedies: 1.1, 2
Enforcements: 1
Failing:
Principles:
Findings of fact:
Remedies: 1
Enforcements:
Paul August ☎ 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you've been most helpful and kind! I've adopted the more economical format. Again, thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of Iden Green

[edit]

Please restore the Iden Green disambiguation page - it only had red links but was useful as it allowed incoming links to be disambiguated correctly (both villages are in the same district, so the usual naming conventions can't be used). Both topics seem to be valid, as there are links from other articles, and blue links (to Goudhurst and Benenden) can be added if necessary. Peter E. James (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

[edit]

Grazie tante! That's a nice surprise and it should make reverting multiple nonsense edits much easier. De728631 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've often seen you around and was surprised to see you were not a rollbacker yet; so I thought I should correct that oversight... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for dealing with my Rollback request so quickly. Not to worry about the signature issue. Philip.t.day talk 21:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! And thanks for your understanding Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing 3701 (music band)

[edit]

I just wanted to compliement you on your speed. I think that was four minutes from the time I tagged this article for CSD until you deleted it! Amazing! I'm going to watch the redlink in case it comes back, which I suspect it may do. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The fact we have almost no backlog does help, though... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That in itself is good! Thanks for the speed! - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stupid

[edit]

I was on IRC, and my "blatant bad faith" wasn't that, the user came onto IRC and said they owned that article and their username was that article name. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of stupidity. And, if the user was on IRC, you could have explained them how things work there and not dropping templates here and reporting them to UAA, without an explanation.

Also, please let me note that this is not the first time you do this. Only today, you reported this user, who had not yet edited, minutes after dropping a {{uw-coi-username}} on their talk page and this user, who had never edited.

I'm not out to get you, I'm not accusing you of being stupid and I'm not saying your contributions are not appreciated. It's just a bit of advice, to help you improve as a Wikipedian. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:
There's all the evidence that you need.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 20:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not post IRC transcripts, unless you have permission from everyone involved. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antinfek

[edit]

It is important that the public understands what Antinfek is. It is being used by government, If we do not create the awareness of what antinfek is than then Chlorine will continue to kill and cause cancer. Why dont you block chlorine, or any other chemicals that are posted in Wiki. Simply deleting this important information is unjust and not fair to the public. They need to know there is an alternative to other chemicals...Do you not agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyjuice (talk • contribs)

I may agree with you, but, unfortunately, that is not the point... Wikipedia is for products or technologies that are already notable — that is to sat things that have received significant coverage in realiable, third-part sources —; it is not a way to promote a product or to soapbox.

Also, please remember that all articles on Wikipedia should not promotional in nature, but should be written in a neutral way. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for deleting my userpages =). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sisson Independent Party

[edit]

The Sip is not a hoax it is a party that I am very proud of being a part of. It is embarrassing enough that you do not recogize our party immediately but you insult me and the many other followers by naming our party as a hoax. Please undo your error and all will be put right.

Yours sincerely Jack Matthews - SIP Head of IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by GZizzone (talk • contribs)

I could find no mention of this party anywhere, but in the article I deleted. I do not believe this party exists; however, if you can point me to a reliable source (i.e. not a Facebook page or a blog or something along those lines) that proves this party's existence, I'll restore the article. Until then, I'm sorry, but I'll leave it deleted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cowley

[edit]

Who decides which artists/bands are worthy of an entry? I added him, but as a STUB, allowing anyone who knew him better to flesh out the details - discography etc. Please can you look at the bio on the referenced website, and please re-instate - whilst someone else gets the time to flesh out the info.

Regards, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs)

The article read Matthew (Matt) Cowley (born 1974) is a professional drummer. Matt grew up in Billingham, England; where he attended both Northfield and Bede College. As such it did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. I can userfy the article for you, if you wish to work on it, but please read WP:MUSICBIO, to see if he's notable enough for inclusion.

So, do you want the article userfied? Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, sorry I've only edited existing articles before. I will try and flesh out the detail, if you can "userfi" it for me that will be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs)
 Done. You can find it here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Could you take a look and see if it's now in a fit state to go onto the main site, where somewhere with some more knowledge / time, than me can now work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs)
I admit I'm not really sure, here; the article is definitely better and, from what I can see, establishes importance, enough to pass A7 (but that's my opinion); however, please be aware that someone might still PROD it or send it to AfD, because I'm not really certain that notability has been established... That said, feel free to move it back whenever you wish, I believe it should not be speedied. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks. I'll do my best to help out with the pending changes section. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: ORRA Jewellery

[edit]

Hi Salvio, Would like to thank you deleting the page ORRA Jewellery. Will work harder on the content, and surely not make it look like advertising. This was not the intent at all.

There was a message for speedy deletion, and did make my request for not deleting it, cause i was still gathering facts about the jewellery industry in India.

If there is something you have against, jewellery or the Indian community, please do highlight. Will surely not want to upset you about the page, again. Moksh Juneja 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

José Pástor

[edit]

Dear Salvio, please, dont delete the Jose Pastor's(musician) article, I consider relevant the info about him and his music. Look on the web how good is the work of this guy. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.207.138 (talk)

Unfortunately, I had to, because the article did not explain why this musician is important or significant. I have left a note on Jazzforever's talk page, the page creator, explaining why I deleted the article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A la Carte Maps

[edit]

Dear Salvio,
please help me, because I really don't know why you deleted the site. I only posted what the company and the product is about...
Thanks in advance!
Pascal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weinfurtnerp (talk • contribs)

I deleted the article because it was written in a promotional tone and it would have needed a rewrite to make it encyclopaedic; Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. All the maps are designed by young artists trying to capture the spirit of the city making each map unique in its appearance. or A la Carte Maps come in a handy format (42x70cm) and can be folded to 10x21cm. All maps are matt-laminated which makes them moisture-resistant and durable. The concept is to go “back to the roots” as everyone nowadays focuses on mobile internet/Iphone Applications. are just an example of what I perceived as promotion.

Furthermore, the article does not explain why the site is important; before recreating the page, please read Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles.

Moreover, do you work for this site? If so, you have a conflict of interest and I have to invite you to read WP:COI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the Headline is closed now, will you open it again or what shall I do when I have a more proper text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weinfurtnerp (talk • contribs)
My suggestion would be to draft a new article in your userspace, you can click on Use:Weinfurtnerp/A la Carte Maps and create a new subpage; once you are through, you can ask for feedback at WP:Requests for feedback. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_17&oldid=1143284264"