User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 69

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

DS review

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies talk 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fabio Rugge

Hi, I started this. Seeing your connection with Padu Uni, I wondered if you'd be interested in further adding to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My connection with my alma mater is rather tenuous by now, as I've graduated years ago... And your message here is the first I have ever heard of that professor; however, if you need help with any translation, I'd be happy to help. Other than that I'm not sure I can be of much assistance... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Those chickens again

So despite the extended semi you placed on Serama, some sort of dispute has inexplicably flared up again. A dormant SPA, Rsteagall (talk · contribs), emerged, did some promotional editing. I wouldn't exactly call this a major issue by itself, but it seems to have spurred the creation of a new user, NCOCEO (talk · contribs), who made the edits needed to get autoconfirmed and went on to go and remove the picture added by the original SPA for some reason (meanwhile they claim a picture where a neck fades into a background tree isn't photoshopped, which is in my eyes quite a claim). It's clearly a sock of one of the IPs which fought over this article so many times. Can you give them an uninvolved warning (I have the feeling I'm taken to be some sort of Serama importer/seller/somethingorother based on past statements, by which party I'm not even sure anymore), and take any other appropriate action? Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the lack of a response, which is due to the fact that lately I'm insanely busy in real life. I'll try to get to this query as soon as possible, but I'm afraid it's not going to be before next Tuesday... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure real life is more exciting than squabbling chooks. CMD (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm very sorry for the delay. However, I'm happy to see that warring has stopped. I have taken a look at the situation and it seems to be, for the most part, a content dispute, so there is very little I can do: if the edit war were to flare up again, I could only protect the page or, alternatively, issue blocks... This is something that should be solved through Wikipedia's DR methods, not administrative involvement... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It feels to me like the continual appearance of new socks pushing the same POVs is not a content issue. Surely enforcing a whole new DR everytime a new sock pops up will just tire the regular editors out? CMD (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to pull this out of the archives Salvio, but I don't understand how socks are a DR issue. The latest edit summary, saying "we ARE the consensus", shows they're still editing from some company POV or something. Again they're ignoring the talkpage, where discussion has been held. CMD (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that, when you first reported the guy here, I ran a check and found him to be apparently legit. There were no traces of sock puppetry I could find (it's possible there was meatpuppetry, but I have no evidence, and it's possible there was sock puppetry, since I haven't kept any records concerning the previous incarnations of the Serama editor, so, again, I have no evidence).

So, basically, I can't in good conscience block him. My thinking was that if you get a consensus, you can then enforce said consensus on the article, without having to start DR every time "one of them" shows up. Until then, you can only tackle this by edit warring with them... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot IPs can't be linked. That's my fault. If it really isn't related to all the IPs, then I'll be greatly surprised. I was looking more for an uninvolved administrator warning than a block, but your position makes sense.
There isn't one Serama editor (or one group). There's (at least) two, and they seem to fight over the page. One for example added File:Fidel a Jerry Schexnayder Traditional Serama 2013.jpg, while the editor we're discussing removes it as advertisement.
I don't see how I could "enforce" anything on them, it'd be edit warring of some sort again. Some issues, say the picture that's apparently advertising, just seem so obscure. I suppose I'll break down the various issues of the page one by one, when I have time. CMD (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi. I notice there hasn't been any messages posted to the Workshop talk page in over a week now. Is something expected of me as this point? Am I expected to respond to the most recent messages on the Workshop page? Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. To be entirely honest, something would be expected of me, at this point, namely that I publish a draft on the workshop page, so that everyone can comment, before moving it to the PD page. The problem is that lately I'm a bit busy and, so, have not yet had the time to get to it... However, a draft will be posted as soon as I can and, then, you'll have the opportunity of commenting on it, if you so desire. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You know why, you also forgot to tag him Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess this makes me a lazy defender of the wiki... Seriously, though, the fact is that I can leave the CU-block template automatically when I block someone using the CU interface, whereas I can only tag a userpage manually... So it takes a little longer, because I never seem to be able to fill the tag correctly... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

My apologies

I want to thank you for offering the extension, life just is what it is sometimes. So my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

It looks like Beeblebrox has already pointed out in the workshop discussion some of what I was going to post (the jennifer grey discussion, for example), though I suppose I should note that due to copy pasting discussions back n forth (and at times, just removal), that discussion may need to be read chronologically between the three talk pages (NS's, DC's and mine), using the page history diffs alone. (NS's talk page history would seem to be moved to User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1, with some at User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4.) But I suppose one could start here and read diffs at least through October 20ish 2008. Several people besides me, including Hiding, Emperor, Doczilla, DC, etc., tried to talk with NS (with his responses mostly on their talk pages). It's been years now, has there been a behavioural change in the meantime?

When I had a spare moment, I started trying to better illustrate with diffs, and it just became a point by point lengthy mess which I'm guessing you'd have wanted me to trim anyway. And I just ran out of free time after that.

What also may or may not be of note was how NS seemingly turned on DC. Which surprised me, since DC had noted to me that he had met NS in person previously, and they were friendly. It seemed to surprise DC too, and apparently cooled their subsequent interactions.

I can note this all in some case page/talk page if you like, or you are of course welcome to paste this as well, at your discretion.

And again, my apologies for the late reply. - jc37 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm somewhat infamous myself for late replies... So, as I said, no problem.

Anyway, I see that you have posted a comment on the workshop's page; so there's no longer any need to copy your comment. As a side note, I have just posted the proposed decision; if you wish to make comments on that, you are welcome to. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I copied it to the workshop talk page as well. I'll check out the final decision page. Thanks again : ) - jc37 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just checking

ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Deonis_2012 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hasan_Rizvanbegovic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kihtnu (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Clarification request

Dear Salvio,
I am concerned that my clarification request may have turned out a little too long. Would it help the arbitrators if I collapsed the long text and summarized the request into a few numbered questions?
Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking personally, yes, I think it would help and would be appreciated. That said, please be aware that, from what I've understood of the current request, I don't think ArbCom is competent to grant you what you're asking. Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Salvio. Your statement (starting from the third sentence) clears up my doubts.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Austrian economics arb com case

Hi, I have apparently been mentioned in the evidence of this case. I find this odd since I have not edited this article and have had largely limited interaction with the relevant editor or topic area generally. To the extent that I have interacted w EllenCT it has involved removing WP:SYN, commonly after RFC consensus has been established. Not knowing exactly where to respond, I put this information on the Workshop page. If this is not the proper area to respond please tell me and I'll remove it. Thanks in advance for the advice. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I was about to move it, when I saw your message. I believe that, technically speaking, that's probably the right place, but it's an awfully obscure spot and I don't know why it's still present in the page template, considering that, off the top of my head, I can't think of a recent case where it was used; it's probably a relic of the past. Anyway, you can reply to someone else's evidence either on the evidence page or on the talk page; it's up to you (this is something that's usually decided by the drafting arb, but nobody has stepped forward yet...) Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. I think that I will probably move it or re-post it to the evidence page. Because it really doesn't have much to do with whatever the issue is at that article, I'll wait til the actual involved editors place their discussions regarding the arb com matter. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

MalesAlwaysBest

Already blocked as a vandalism only account, but if this is not him, I will eat your hat. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't wear hats; would you settle for a toupée? That said, the check was inconclusive, but that guy had a little friend (UltimateRacialExemplar (talk · contribs))... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Glad it was inconclusive, a hairy meal is not my idea of fun Got another one though, probably Nangparbat based on the edits. Adding stuff the Indian security forces have done, obviously not a problem, but at the same time removing stuff done in Azad Kashmir. And Nang has a history of hitting up these articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Message on DS review page

Hello Salvio giuliano,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [1], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Just wanted to add that I hope your health issues mentioned at the top of this page are soon resolved! NinaGreen (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

SuzanneOlsson

She's using her talk page User talk:SuzanneOlsson today simply to attack me. I could reply I guess (see[2]) but it seems to be that this oversteps the reason she is still allowed to use her talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack, but I've left the rant; that's her talk page after all and I believe she should be given a little leeway (of course, provided she doesn't attack anybody). If she restores the part I removed, do feel free to let me know and I'll try to talk to her. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That seems fair enough, but obviously she doesn't have access to her talk page to attack anyone. Kaveh Farrokh once put up a page attacking me on the basis of that Examiner.com article but although I've reverted stuff about him in the past we ended up friends and he took the page down. Don't think this will happen with the author of that Examiner.com article though. :-) Dougweller (talk)
14:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Doug? You having problems again? I can't imagine how that happens so often to you. There are millions of people worldwide who believe as an article of their religious faith that Roza Bal is indeed the tomb of Jesus. To deny half the critical evidence (the relics) from a discussion on the page is like saying; "Well, you see, there's this Shroud in Turin...but it's not important...let's not include that...." I "rant" ? I thought I was being nice and polite. Have a nice Valentine Day. Glad to see that Salvio is feeling better. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Salvio Giuliano

Are you serious about vandalism by Administrators......I have a case in hand..how will you tackle this please..... an Administrator constantly engages in a derogatory stance and shows clear bias.... how will you as a person handle this.... are you willing to fight this out..... Is it a challenge that you would like to take.....IndianAnthro 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this relevant? - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Assuming it is, IndianAnthro, I can say that I am familiar with both Qwrxian and Sitush. Both are editors I respect and, from my experience, both usually try to improve articles so that they comply with our rules. They may be wrong on the merits in this case – I'm not really knowledgeable about jatis, so I can't offer an opinion at the moment –, but I have no doubts they are acting in good faith. So, please, no accusations of vandalism or of "engaging in a derogatory stance" and also no allegations of sock puppetry, which are entirely off the mark. Remember that unsubstantiated accusations are considered personal attacks and may lead to sanctions. This appears to be a content dispute, which means that there is nothing for me to do, and that you should follow these methods to resolve it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

DS review - quick note

Thanks for hatting; I'm glad arbs are telling Nina to make room for others and if you missed my prior remarks, I'm a DS supporter and appreciate the effort everyone is making during the review.

The reason for my note here is to observe that in the section you hatted I did post some mark up text suggesting technical writing improvement to the draft text; I intended no operational changes, just some tweaks to polish the apple on the presentation. I don't care if they get used or not, but I would like them to be actually thought about and not just lost in an editor's verbosity and subsequent hatting. Do you think it appropriate to repost that mark up some place where the clerks can easily find it again for consideration on draft #3? If so, where? As I say, the suggestions strike me as minor wordsmithing in nature. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I did notice your comments, thanks. AGK and I are doing the drafting (based on good suggestions from the talk page) and your comments will be taken into account in the next draft (which is fairly imminent). There's no need to copy them anywhere but thanks for offering. Excuse me for butting in, Salvio.  Roger Davies talk 14:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Great thanks. Ya'll have been unbelievably patient in this endeavor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger, don't worry: mi talk page es tu talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [3]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

This is the perfect example of why your proposal to substitute discretionary sanctions with page blocks is destined to fail: one person shuts down a discussion in one venue and it just gets moved elsewhere. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Your charm

:) Drmies (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Salvio, I've struck the note I left the clerks in the recent case request. I should have paid more attention to the wording of your decline. I hope you will accept my apologies for what was an error of judgement on my part. Carcharoth (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth:, don't worry. I realise I should have worded my vote differently to make my intent clearer (someone, can't remember who, has proposed that, in future, deal with by motion should be used instead and I agree). I also apologise if my reaction has appeared hostile. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Email

Hi Salvio there is an email to the arbcom list waiting for moderator approval that was sent on February 28. --Pine✉ 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pine, I am not a list moderator, so I cannot moderate your e-mail through. I'll ping Roger Davies and AGK, to see what one of them can do. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Found it, Pine, and replied.  Roger Davies talk 12:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion [4] on talk page of 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea [5]

@Salvio : Just thought that I'd share a few comments regarding your posting :

1/ FYI ArbCom falls under dispute resolution procedures. This article has undergone dispute resolution cycles and just to take a couple of examples (I am not going to list all of them and waste time & bandwidth), please refer to this ROBERTIKI's contrib history [6] and you will see therein submissions made by this user at dispute resolution noticeboard. I am sure you can search and find other instances and other users who have resorted to disruptive edits and misuse of dispute resolution procedures as per [WP:BRD].
2/ On your user-page you define yourself as "editor, an administrator and, currently, an arbitrator here on Wikipedia". You should therefore know that your suggestion of discretionary sanctions have been authorised for all articles about India, Pakistan & Afghanistan, cf. WP:ARBIPA is patently misleading because it is a half-truth. Kindly refer to the recommendations and rules defining discretionary sanctions detail the context, circumstances and procedures under which they are supposed to be used. You will notice that these discretionary sanctions were discussed and agreed-upon as a means to end edit-wars for India-Pakistan disputes. You can see the discussion pages for more detail on the use of discretionary sanctions viz India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries.
3/ Being Italian yourself, has it occurred to you that you expose yourself to scrutiny for these comments that can be perceived as being biased & and even bordering on hostile/intimidation (since you are speaking of unilateral sanctions so early-on in a discussion which is against regular recommendations of dispute resolution & WP:AE) ?
81.240.144.24 (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll reply there. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion [7] 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the in the Laccadive

As you may read, one editor after reverting my edits, refuses to discuss the reasons, writing: "You are parroting the same thing over and over again. I am unwilling now to continue repeating myself." I am not sure if I may start now WP:AE. Any suggestions ? --Robertiki (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good-faith content dispute, so my suggestion would be to go to WP:BLPN... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Salvio: Your participation is solicited in the thread How to stop a page being 'gamed' ? because I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have made mention to the earlier interaction about WP:ARBIPA and so thought that you should be informed.
My IP has indeed changed but I cannot do much about it (see talk page for reason). So, as you know I am the Belgian based contributor. 91.182.126.147 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies). 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. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_69&oldid=1143284413"