→Revert: new section |
Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 627: | Line 627: | ||
Please explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa&diff=478525678&oldid=478517537 this edit]. There seems no attempt to provide any explanation in either the edit summary or on the talk page itself. Is the bot not properly authorised? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 06:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
Please explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa&diff=478525678&oldid=478517537 this edit]. There seems no attempt to provide any explanation in either the edit summary or on the talk page itself. Is the bot not properly authorised? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 06:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Please see [[Wikipedia:Ani#Mass rollback request - EdwardsBot and Ichthus: January 2012|this discussion]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 09:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Revert == |
== Revert == |
Revision as of 09:44, 24 February 2012
“ | → My view stretches out from the fence to the wall | ” |
— Today's Motto of the Day
|
Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8 - Archive 9 - Archive 10 - Archive 11 - Archive 12 - Archive 13 - Archive 14 - Archive 15 - Archive 16 - Archive 17 - Archive 18 - Archive 19 - Archive 20 - Archive 21 - Archive 22 - Archive 23 - Archive 24 - Archive 25 - Archive 26 - Archive 27 - Archive 28 - Archive 29 - Archive 30 - Archive 31 - Archive 32 - Archive 33 - Archive 34 - Archive 35 - Archive 36 - Archive 37 - Archive 38 - Archive 39 - Archive 40 - Archive 41 - Archive 42 - Archive 43 |
Rollback question
Hi, thanks for accepting my rollback request a few days ago; I've got a question about when it can be used. It says everywhere that it can only be used to revert clear vandalism, not simply good faith edits. But if I were to come upon a good faith edit that was not vandalism, but was incorrect and simply needed to be removed immediately, how would this edit be removed, if not with rollback? Perhaps my definition of good faith is wrong, but this seemed a bit confusing to me. Thanks! Delaywaves • talk 03:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, such an edit can be removed using the undo button or using Twinkle's "rollback (AGF)" option; rollback is, usually, only meant for clear-cut cases of vandalism, because it doesn't allow you to enter an edit summary – there is also another case: where you have to revert many similar wrong edits made by the same user, due to a misuse of WP:AWB for instance. I can't think of any case where a good-faith edit needs to be removed so fast that the undo button won't do, but, in those cases, you can always invoke WP:IAR and, then, leave a note on the other editor's talk page, explaining him what you just did. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an honour for me
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For support and patience during an editor's rough time. You are one of the ROCKS of this place. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks. And welcome back!
I've just added the barnstar to my collection! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Serama protection
You recently declined semi-protection for Serama as there was not enough recent activity to justify it. However, before the previous semi, there was the same changes being made with unsourced information about living people being inserted. This has continued, and I thought I'd ask for a reevaluation of semi before reverting again. Thanks, CMD (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree; hence, I've semied the article for a week. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The IP came back again, to make the same edits. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP appears to be trying to reference. They once tried to reference to a forum, which I told them was inappropriate. I don't think they'll take any information from me well, so I'd appreciate it if you tried to explain WP:V and WP:RS to them. Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with leaving a warning on an IP's talk page one or two days after the events which prompted the need to issue said warning is that the original editor has probably moved to another IP and will not see the note... Just remove it, leaving a note on the article's talk page – by the way, that material is also problematic due to its tone. Should the IP come back, point him there and see if he starts discussing... If he doesn't, then I'll protect again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP appears to be trying to reference. They once tried to reference to a forum, which I told them was inappropriate. I don't think they'll take any information from me well, so I'd appreciate it if you tried to explain WP:V and WP:RS to them. Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The IP came back again, to make the same edits. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The IP definitely has some sort of COI, as they're insisting on removing inaccurate information and continue to place more unsourced info, the tone of which is promotional of the 'true Malaysian Serama'. Is it possible to have it locked again with another explanation to the IP that they'll have to provide links to sources or quotes? I don't think they're in the mood to listen to me. CMD (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have semied the article for a month, leaving a short note on the talk page. I hope this will be enough to get the IP to start discussing and providing sources... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. ( Salvio Let's talk about it!)
- Completed earlier today. Welcome! :) The Helpful One 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. And also thanks for all the work you all have done, creating the new interface. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just curious - what is UTRS? I know of OTRS but presume that this is not a typo? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- UTRS – a.k.a. Unblock Ticket Request System – is the evolution of unblock-en-l, the mailing list where blocked users could appeal their blocks when they were not allowed or not able to edit their talk pages. The new interface is similar to OTRS, I believe, though I'm unfamiliar with the latter, but it only deals with block appeals. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just curious - what is UTRS? I know of OTRS but presume that this is not a typo? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. And also thanks for all the work you all have done, creating the new interface. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Notification
Why notify me? I was not the one removing REF pieces but was the one making request for TALK and also more consensus WP:CON Last I checked that was still a major component of Wiki. --Sallynice (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I notified you so that you're aware of the fact that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions – that's rather tautologic, I know... Those edits of yours were problematic, because you kept reverting another user who was removing material from a biography of a living person because he thought that it was in violation of WP:BLP. Said policy mandates that when material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
continued reverts
Hi, please take a look at this: here RicardoKlement (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Issued a warning – I really would prefer to solve this issue without using my tools. Should he revert once more, I'll block. Thanks for getting this to my attention. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Things appear to be getting very heated all round at the moment. I think that you may end having to use those tools, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Sitush. I just cleared my own talk page as a result of the original dispute having ended. RicardoKlement (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- You used a somewhat insulting edit summary. You need to start learning, and fast. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto. Nothing blockable, in my opinion, but certainly sub-optimal! Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- You used a somewhat insulting edit summary. You need to start learning, and fast. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Sitush. I just cleared my own talk page as a result of the original dispute having ended. RicardoKlement (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
RFA
Many thanks for your kind words! Regards, GiantSnowman 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions on Caste issues
This was very much needed, thanks for taking the initiative. I'm thinking of making the "Indian subcontinent" part more clearer to include India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. I don't know much about Myanmar and Thailand caste equations, so we can probably include that if needed. Lynch7 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Burma, not Myanmar <g> The person to speak with regarding that place is probably Blade. Do these issues extend into Afghanistan? - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I must admit I'm not really familiar with the various nuances of the issue (I studied – and researched a bit about – Hindu Law back when I was attending university, but this is it), so I welcome any and all corrections. As I said to Sitush, feel free to tweak my proposal. I'm not offended. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio. Though I know this is a bit distant from your pace of work, could you help me find a photo chart of birthstones we can use? This article looks ridiculous without one. If you can't help, permission to copy this to other admins or editors? Please reply my talk, ok? Thanks!--Djathinkimacowboy 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Truth has not triumphed
Thank you. You know why. Now, the sooner those discretionary sanctions come in, the better. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're most welcome. And the title of the section made me laugh. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yeah. I could equally have said that "Verifiability always triumphs". Perhaps I should create a sock account in that name? Erm, then again, maybe not. :S Sitush (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now, that's an awesome username. I'm off to WP:CHUS! Verifiability always triumphs Let's talk about it! 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yeah. I could equally have said that "Verifiability always triumphs". Perhaps I should create a sock account in that name? Erm, then again, maybe not. :S Sitush (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
ANI closure
An admin who has apparently become involved in ARS just closed an ANI report I listed regarding the group and editor NorthAmerica1000. There was a very clear argument presented as it concerns the actions by North in creating this list immediately after the template got deleted in flagrant disregard for concerns raised by the community. Drmies also closed it within half an hour of an editor's comment and within five hours of it being listed. This is just like the last time when people were rushing to close any discussion about the group's activities.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I must admit I was a bit surprised when the thread was closed, but I assume Drmies did it because he saw that I had snow closed the MfD and honestly believed there was nothing else to add, since the community had already indirectly endorsed this practice. That said, you really ought to talk to Drmies first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I seriously question Drmies' impartiality on this question. The response I just got at the editor's talk page, in light of the fact that Drmies has been involved with one of the incidents regarding the list, suggests re-opening would be best.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The thread was closed prematurely, but it was destined to be closed as "nothing warranting admin action" as nobody, except MBisanz, opined that there was anything wrong with the list. My fear is that if I reopen it there'll be just a good amount of drama without reaching any conclusion other than "nothing to do here" – I don't know if you're aware, but we've been discussing on ANI's talk about ways to improve the noticeboards and one is an increased willingness on the admin's part to close down discussions to avoid drama. If you believe that there were canvassing issues with the AfD you were originally involved in, then take Drmies's advice and start a new thread; if, on the contrary, you object to the list's existence, I fear that the community has already said it does not appear to be blatantly inappropriate – so, maybe, an RFC would be a better idea... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I seriously question Drmies' impartiality on this question. The response I just got at the editor's talk page, in light of the fact that Drmies has been involved with one of the incidents regarding the list, suggests re-opening would be best.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Question about unblock
Ciao, Salvio. I see here that you unblocked EPublicRelationsMT, giving the reason as "per request on unblock-l". I wonder if you could give me more detail about the reason for this unblock? I am asking because it looks as though there may be some sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi James, I believe the editor's use of a sock or, more probably, a meat was an honest mistake: they did not know it was against the rules – and, in fact, when the new account was blocked, they immediately ceased socking and contacted the unblock mailing list. There we had a discussion and the user appeared willing to follow WP:BESTCOI and to change the account's name, undertaking not to edit the articles adding spam links any longer, accepting to propose changes on the article's talk pages instead. I was convinced of their good faith and actioned the unblock request – blocks are cheap after all. Apparently, the user has not edited since and has not filed a rename request; I'm tempted to softblock again, inviting them to create a new account... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories. 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) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
2012 AUSC candidacy
Further to our previous correspondence, your Audit Subcommittee candidacy page has been created. Please visit the page to review (and if necessary, edit) your nomination statement, as well as answer the standard questions. You should also keep watch for any further questions the community may pose. Feel free to contact myself or another arbitrator if you have any questions. Once again, thank you for your offer to serve on the subcommittee. –xenotalk 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Logging out to edit
I think that this IP edit is a pretty obvious case of logging out to avoid 3RR! - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have just undone their edit; had I caught it sooner, I'd also have blocked. Now it's a bit stale, though. I'll leave a short note on this user's talk page, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I am so sure that this was evasion that I actually said as much on their talk page, which probably was not the best move I have made so far today. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw your message on his talk page and thought there was nothing wrong with it – granted, warnings issued by uninvolved editors are usually receveid better than the ones issued by the person you're edit warring with, but you were calm and polite... So don't worry too much about it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I am so sure that this was evasion that I actually said as much on their talk page, which probably was not the best move I have made so far today. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
User:194.81.54.122 and copyvio edits
Fashion and Textile Museum copyvio edits are still ongoing - just a heads-up. I think if I revert any more I may be edit warring even though it appears that obvious copyvio reversions don't count. Not sure how to report them as the edit war report page seems to only be for users with a name rather than anon edits. Thanks so much Mabalu (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have just issued a warning to the IP user, if they add copyvios again, I'll block. That said, reverting blatant copyvios such as this one is a 3-rr exemption, so don't fear: you won't get blocked. And IPs can be reported to WP:ANEW just as much as registered users. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Surturz/AdminWatch
User:Surturz/AdminWatch, a page you are mentioned on, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch (2nd nomination). Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind note. I was aware of the page, but, to be honest, my opinion on its existence can be succinctly summarised as "meh"... I believe you might actually be making Surturz a favour by nominating the page for deletion, because you're giving it visibility – allowing him to get on his soapbox in the process. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
review request
Please review [1] -- don't really understand the redaction Nobody Ent 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I don't see anything offensive there, but I'm not a native speaker, so I might be missing something... I have left a comment on Jehochman's talk page regarding the issue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Flag removal
Hey Salvio, do you think you can remove the Account creator flag on my account for now? I'm not creating accounts right now. Thanks in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 02:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. When you want the flag back, just ping me. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SNOW on ARS list MfD
Would you consider re-opening the MfD? WP:SNOW does not mean "editors quickly flood the discussion in favor of one view" but that there is no basis for a reasonable objection. Five of the editors voting for keeping the list were members of ARS, two claimed there was no policy-based reason for deletion even though WP:CANVASS is just such a reason. One of the others voting keep appears to basically just go around AfD voting keep. I think two hours of discussion was not a lot of time to allow for discussion since those most directly notified were members or sympathizers of the group who would be more likely to vote keep.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am willing to reopen the MfD, but please note that a. opening two different ANI threads and asking me to reopen the MFD may appear as forum shopping and will probably lead to drama; b. the number of keep !votes along with the absence of anyone arguing in favour of deletion, with the exception of the nominator, make it very improbable that the page will actually end up deleted, while, again, making it very probable that drama will ensue; c. the nominator acknowledged he may have jumped the gun there; d. various editors that would be defined as deletionists !voted to keep the list and e. there is no guarantee that the MfD will not be closed again in a couple of hours per snow. So, taking all this into consideration, do you really want the MFD reopened? Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that some people will react like I am forum shopping, but the first ANI thread was closed because of the MfD and several editors in the second ANI thread insisted the MfD settled the whole discussion. Obviously there was a feeling that the MfD was the final word on the subject and so re-opening that discussion for a full airing of all views would not really be trying to find a different way to achieve the same thing. Several people think the MfD close means my objections were invalid so re-opening the MfD and allowing it to remain open more than a few hours so that other interested parties might have time to respond seems to be the best forum to see if there was reason for action. Honestly, I didn't comment on the MfD because I wanted to see how the ANI discussion played out, so the MfD being opened at that time was clearly just a detriment to my attempt to address the issue. Essentially it split the discussion on the dispute with that deletion discussion being used to settle the other.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- MfD reopened. I have serious doubts this will yield any results and the discussion will probably be reclosed quite soon, but there you go. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sheesh, really? How many times is this user going to be allowed to ask the same question, in different ways in different forums, but none of them productive? Come on Salvio, between this guy and Northamerica, both bumbling about blindly, how can we ever get back to work? Drmies (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad Reaper closed it again. Devil's Advocate, you can slowly, maybe, see a picture emerging: the horse is dead. [2]. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes, the shortest distance between two points is an arabesque... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- MfD reopened. I have serious doubts this will yield any results and the discussion will probably be reclosed quite soon, but there you go. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that some people will react like I am forum shopping, but the first ANI thread was closed because of the MfD and several editors in the second ANI thread insisted the MfD settled the whole discussion. Obviously there was a feeling that the MfD was the final word on the subject and so re-opening that discussion for a full airing of all views would not really be trying to find a different way to achieve the same thing. Several people think the MfD close means my objections were invalid so re-opening the MfD and allowing it to remain open more than a few hours so that other interested parties might have time to respond seems to be the best forum to see if there was reason for action. Honestly, I didn't comment on the MfD because I wanted to see how the ANI discussion played out, so the MfD being opened at that time was clearly just a detriment to my attempt to address the issue. Essentially it split the discussion on the dispute with that deletion discussion being used to settle the other.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
One revert restriction?
And now what can I do when this happens? [3] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since the removal of unsourced bits of info is not a 3-rr exemption, you start a discussion with the editor, be it on the article's talk page or on his talk page. This restriction is supposed to get you to talk to the editor you're reverting, instead of keeping on undoing his edits. That said, I have undone this user's edit. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can guarantee this guy will not use the talk page, but I will post on it next time he reverts. I will also point out I have always used the talk page to explain any removals or reverts I have made. Thanks. (Other than the made up one I was blocked for) Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, this is working out great [4] Again reverting uncited content into an article, and of course I can do nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Someone else can revert if policy is on your side. The point of this restriction is exactly this: to prevent you from edit warring, at the same time encouraging you to explore the various methods of dispute resolution Wikipedia offers. Reverting each other until one or both get blocked is not one of those methods. Discuss the issue on the talk page, seek a third opinion, start an RFC or a thread on WP:DRN, there are various way to try to successfully solve disputes.
To tell you the truth, I'm starting to consider the opportunity of asking the community to impose an interaction ban on the two of you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Someone else can revert if policy is on your side. The point of this restriction is exactly this: to prevent you from edit warring, at the same time encouraging you to explore the various methods of dispute resolution Wikipedia offers. Reverting each other until one or both get blocked is not one of those methods. Discuss the issue on the talk page, seek a third opinion, start an RFC or a thread on WP:DRN, there are various way to try to successfully solve disputes.
- I did post on the talk page, he told me I was disruptive and to get sources from other articles. No need to bother with an interaction ban, I have seen all I need to. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, what he said was that the same content could be referenced very easily from the linked articles from the internal links and, hence, he considered blanking it without at least a good-faith attempt at sourcing to be disruptive. As a matter of fact, I partially agree with him: while it's true the policy allows you to revert all unsourced contentious material, I believe at least a good-faith effort should be made to source it before removing the whole lot – basically gutting the article. TopGun said he'd try to source it as soon as he can; and I trust him. If he does not see to it in a reasonable period of time, then a discussion regarding disruption can be started. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last time he copied sourcing over from another article they failed verification. It was pure WP:OR. Like I said, don't bother yourself, I am not the first to notice he constantly adds unsourced content to articles and uses OR on a regular basis. He has even reverted in Op-Eds being used for statements of fact. Let him rampage and turn to trash every politically sensitive article on wiki, it is not my reputation being damaged. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you have hard evidence (diffs) that TopGun behaviour is being disruptive and you (and others) have already tried to discuss the issue, but this has yielded no results, don't keep following him around reverting all his edits. You've been doing that for a bit, now. What has that accomplished? IF, as I was saying, you can prove his behaviour was disruptive, then just start an WP:RFC. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last time he copied sourcing over from another article they failed verification. It was pure WP:OR. Like I said, don't bother yourself, I am not the first to notice he constantly adds unsourced content to articles and uses OR on a regular basis. He has even reverted in Op-Eds being used for statements of fact. Let him rampage and turn to trash every politically sensitive article on wiki, it is not my reputation being damaged. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, what he said was that the same content could be referenced very easily from the linked articles from the internal links and, hence, he considered blanking it without at least a good-faith attempt at sourcing to be disruptive. As a matter of fact, I partially agree with him: while it's true the policy allows you to revert all unsourced contentious material, I believe at least a good-faith effort should be made to source it before removing the whole lot – basically gutting the article. TopGun said he'd try to source it as soon as he can; and I trust him. If he does not see to it in a reasonable period of time, then a discussion regarding disruption can be started. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did post on the talk page, he told me I was disruptive and to get sources from other articles. No need to bother with an interaction ban, I have seen all I need to. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- This restriction has been breached at [5] with reverts of (different) tags which were removed, disagreed, sentences cited inline and clarified by two users including me on the article talk and Afd. First he asked to verify, which I did, then added inline on request. This is fully cited content, anyway I'll like to keep the content dispute away from your talk page or any other unrelated page. If you like I can file at AN3. A note on above allegations, I've cited most of the content by now and all of DS's allegations are inappropriate, appreciate that you assumed good faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Request you read this [6] Before listening to the block shopper. Adding CN tags is not a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Content dispute, 2) Personal attack, 3) Not understanding the meaning of a revert. None of above is a reason I can believe for trying to collaborate or not editwar. And then it is not just me who opposed this. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Block shopper[7] No 3RR violations at all. Were have I seen this before? [8] O ya, that's the one. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Scusa, Salvio, ma devo dirti qualcosa. Per da vero, per favore, non farai lo stesso errore che ha fatto Magog. Non reagire a questo sobra, altrimenti non avrai piú pace. TG non é cosí innocente come si presenta. Ora che Magog non reagisce piú ai sui domande, lui si cercha un'altro posto per domandare i block per altre persone. Cmq, scusa per il mio italiano. ;) Anche se DS non ha fatto proprio giusto giusto una cosa (io nn lo so), TG dovrebbe andare alle noticeboards. Ma la lo hanno detto questo e questo. JCAla (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The diffs provided above have the same reasons as the recent blocks handed out by Magog after a result of repeated hounding by the mentioned user and me reporting that. I have however already offered to take this to a noticeboard. Your talk page is not the place for the report, but then this was not started by me but DS himself. Use of non-English above just explains JCAla's intent. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Content dispute, 2) Personal attack, 3) Not understanding the meaning of a revert. None of above is a reason I can believe for trying to collaborate or not editwar. And then it is not just me who opposed this. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Nowadays, everyone understands everything just by using google translator or by other means - as you obviously did. My using the Italian language was out of fun and appreciation for Italian culture. Get over your paranoia. Not everyone is hounding you. Capisci? ;) JCAla (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well I am a fan of Rome, the food, the wine, the history, the wine, the architecture, the wine. Rome rocks. My brother says the rest of the country is also fun. (must be he is going to move there) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I've written on TopGun's talk page, baiting another editor into violating his restriction and then go block shopping can be construed as a form of WP:GAME. I hesitate to do anything further as the matter has already been settled by a fellow administrator at WP:ANEW – and, for what it's worth, I fully endorse Bwilkins's decision.
And now for something different, I love Rome; Italy, however, has many more wonderful places that are not as much famous and that's a shame. I absolutely adore Umbria, for instance. And don't even get me started on Tuscany. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, niente é come la bella Sicilia! Peró, é vero, la Toskana é veramente bellissima anche. L'aria, mangiare, don't get me started. JCAla (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- JCAla sono molto impressionato dal tuo Italiano – e dai tuoi gusti: la Sicilia è fantastica, sebbene la conosca peggio di quanto vorrei –. I miei complimenti! Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, niente é come la bella Sicilia! Peró, é vero, la Toskana é veramente bellissima anche. L'aria, mangiare, don't get me started. JCAla (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Grazie. :) Amo come tutti gli impressioni (l'aria, suoni, odori, ...) sono tanto piú intensivi nella Sicilia. Poi, il mangiare, olio d'oliva, salsa di pomodoro fatto in casa, tutto un altro mondo ... :) JCAla (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone with a bit of legal clue?
I realise that your knowledge of law probably does not lie in the legal systems of India but there is a BLP issue at Vijay Kumar Singh which is pretty much based on fundamental legal concepts - when does a court recuse itself from adjudication etc - and newspaper reportage thereof. I will try to explain on the article talk page in a few hours' time and would be very grateful for your opinion there. As a Wikipedian with clue, obviously, rather than in a professional capacity. I think that we might be in some danger of misrepresentation unless someone with a degree of expertise casts their eye over it. And I am far from convinced that I have got it right, although I have used an attributed quotation in order to absolve myself. The obvious get-out clause would be to cite the alternative reportage but I'll set the stall out and let others decide how best to deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I left a note here regarding the sanctions issue. I hope that this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the tardy reply, but you caught me exactly as I was going to bed... I'll be glad to take a look at the article, though, as you imagined, Indian law is not exactly my field of expertise. Regarding the note on the Indian noticeboard, well done. I did not think about informing them, but it is quite reasonable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in. You got there before I provided a full summary etc but you have clarified things quite a lot. Journos are often a bane, as I have experienced on a personal level ("interviews" that never took place, for example), but generally speaking The Hindu tends to be rated more reliable/less ambiguous than the Times of India, per discussions with experienced editors who actually live in India. The quote that I used did absolve us of a degree of responsibility but I will see if I can find some way of tightening things up because there is a clear doubt (an oxymoron, but I think that you will understand!). I think that Indian court documents are available as a public resource but they would be primary sources and probably not particularly helpful in this instance due to WP:OR etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- My pleasure. And I agree that you can never go wrong when you directly quote a newspaper, but if you can find a way to tighten up the wording that would be great. Regarding the use of court documents, they're certainly primary sources and should not generally be used due to WP:OR concerns, but, if I recall correctly, there was a policy somewhere that allows us to use primary sources to solve conflicts between secondary sources. I cannot for the life of me remember where that policy is located, however – or even be sure that it exists and I'm just not imagining it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in. You got there before I provided a full summary etc but you have clarified things quite a lot. Journos are often a bane, as I have experienced on a personal level ("interviews" that never took place, for example), but generally speaking The Hindu tends to be rated more reliable/less ambiguous than the Times of India, per discussions with experienced editors who actually live in India. The quote that I used did absolve us of a degree of responsibility but I will see if I can find some way of tightening things up because there is a clear doubt (an oxymoron, but I think that you will understand!). I think that Indian court documents are available as a public resource but they would be primary sources and probably not particularly helpful in this instance due to WP:OR etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the tardy reply, but you caught me exactly as I was going to bed... I'll be glad to take a look at the article, though, as you imagined, Indian law is not exactly my field of expertise. Regarding the note on the Indian noticeboard, well done. I did not think about informing them, but it is quite reasonable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sanctions template
The template you made at User:Salvio giuliano/Castewarning looks great. Would you mind moving it into template space, then we can start transcluding it as needed on article talk pages? As mentioned at WT:INB, I don't think we should just try to tag all of them now (there's a lot), but we can tag as issues occur on each page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment, but I only adapted Template:Uw-sanctions, so my input there is incredibly limited. Let me add a documentation to the template and then I'll move it to template space. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's now live. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, Salvio. Qwyrxian suggested at WT:INB that it might be posted on article talk pages but I am less certain because of: "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." That sentence reads to me as being a little too personal for an article talk page and more apposite as a user talk page warning, as indeed its "uw" prefix indicates. I am going to inform Qwyrxian of this note. It may need to be discussed at some higher level - WT:INB or a template forum, for example - but I think that we can probably iron out any kinks beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes,
{{uw-castewarning}}
is only meant to be used on user talk pages; if you want a template to be placed on article's talk pages, I can adapt{{Article discretionary sanctions}}
, but I fear it would take forever to tag every article placed under discretionary sanctions... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)- We would tag as events emerge, I think. Articles such as Nair and Ezhava would qualify for tagging now; others, such as Koraga, are clearly insignificant in terms of contention at present. There are a lot of articles that cannot even be picked up from the categories - mainly due to non-cat'ing or obscure choices - but I feel that the notice needs only to be inserted where there is extant evidence of problematic contributions. A shot across the bows, for want of a better phrase. I have actually used your template as a pre-emptive warning at User talk:Ror Is King in the last few hours, primarily because there is a bit of history relating to that user. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the first version: Template:Castewarningtalk. Feel free to tweak. And I'm happy to see "my" template is getting used! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have notified Q of the developments in this thread and I have also left a note for AshLin in case they feel that it needs discussion at some higher level. However, and writing as someone who is pretty clueless on these matters, that article talk page template seems ok to me. I appreciate the effort in trying to sort out this messy caste/community issue. Ror Is King had a bit of a rough ride at WP:ANI in November and has just returned to contributing, none of which may be obvious from their talk page. Hopefully they will take on board the recent developments but I must admit that it is going to take me a while to feel my way through them and so a degree of leniency is probably appropriate elsewhere. I am frequently amazed about how little I know of WP procedure! - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I said "leniency" above - no such word, I fear? "Lenience". - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- AshLin has said that he does not intend to pursue the matter further. Honestly, yes, it could have been kind to inform the WikiProject of the ongoing discussion, but it's not like we tried to hide anything: AN is one of the most heavily watched noticeboards on Wikipedia – more than 3000 people watch it – and the thread was open for five days. Well, this will be useful should I ever decide to propose discretionary sanctions on another topic – and I sincerely hope I shan't have to do that any time soon. Regarding leniency – which does exist –, I tend to agree. But I believe we will be able to fine-tune our collective approach as we go along: not that many established editors, or admins for that matter, edit in the topic area... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I said "leniency" above - no such word, I fear? "Lenience". - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have notified Q of the developments in this thread and I have also left a note for AshLin in case they feel that it needs discussion at some higher level. However, and writing as someone who is pretty clueless on these matters, that article talk page template seems ok to me. I appreciate the effort in trying to sort out this messy caste/community issue. Ror Is King had a bit of a rough ride at WP:ANI in November and has just returned to contributing, none of which may be obvious from their talk page. Hopefully they will take on board the recent developments but I must admit that it is going to take me a while to feel my way through them and so a degree of leniency is probably appropriate elsewhere. I am frequently amazed about how little I know of WP procedure! - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the first version: Template:Castewarningtalk. Feel free to tweak. And I'm happy to see "my" template is getting used! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- We would tag as events emerge, I think. Articles such as Nair and Ezhava would qualify for tagging now; others, such as Koraga, are clearly insignificant in terms of contention at present. There are a lot of articles that cannot even be picked up from the categories - mainly due to non-cat'ing or obscure choices - but I feel that the notice needs only to be inserted where there is extant evidence of problematic contributions. A shot across the bows, for want of a better phrase. I have actually used your template as a pre-emptive warning at User talk:Ror Is King in the last few hours, primarily because there is a bit of history relating to that user. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes,
- Thanks for that, Salvio. Qwyrxian suggested at WT:INB that it might be posted on article talk pages but I am less certain because of: "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." That sentence reads to me as being a little too personal for an article talk page and more apposite as a user talk page warning, as indeed its "uw" prefix indicates. I am going to inform Qwyrxian of this note. It may need to be discussed at some higher level - WT:INB or a template forum, for example - but I think that we can probably iron out any kinks beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's now live. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Signature syntax
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; (class=texhtml)"> '''[[User:Salvio
giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]]
This is currently your signature. However, there is a part of the code that does absolutely nothing, which has been placed in parentheses. The correct code for the texhtml
class is this:
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio
giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]]
The result being this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Σ is using this signature for demonstrative purposes only. Salvio Let's talk about it!
You may find that it is a change that you do not want. If so, please remove the unnecessary code. Thanks, →Στc. 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks! I have made the change you suggested!
I really wasn't aware that part of the code was superfluous, because, to tell the truth, I copied that code a very long time ago from a page somewhere using View > Page Source... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dodgy username
I have no idea what it means but User:Debbarmasitush is clearly commenting in some way about me in their choice of username, and has posted at Talk:Nair. Should I report the name? - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Uhm, I don't have a clue as to what it means either, probably you should contact Mike Lynch. I don't believe a report to UAA would yield any results as the name does not appear to be blatantly inappropriate... If Mike can't help either, I'll have a chat with the editor. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Belay that, I've just indeffed under WP:NLT... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Looks like a Tamil slang word, something I loosely recall from my travels in Western Tamil Nadu. I don't think its very derogatory, but it would have been definitely something worth watching. But well, its indeffed now anyway. Lynch7 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Mike. I must admit I was kinda curious. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Lustywench
Thanks for speedy-closing the discussion, I'm sorry I initiated it. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And don't be sorry, you were thinking, in good faith, that your actions would improve Wikipedia, which the really important thing. We all make mistakes, after all. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- In a spirit of good will, I have changed my signature to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Thanks, -- Lustywench (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lustywench tried to add this comment here at the stated time, but for some reason the edit filter blocked it as a personal attack. I've copied it here because I can't see what's wrong with it. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nyttend. I honestly can't see why this message was blocked... Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is your mess
[9] So now I am unable to add RS tags to Op-Eds being used for statements of facts? Which I brought to the RSN board [10] and which TG is well aware of [11] So well done for helping TG continue with his blockshopping and editwarring. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- And see here [12] if you ca nbe bothered to. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not the only user who disagrees with him here. Don't know how him alone bringing the topic to RSN makes it ok to be in the article (since no one commented on it as of now). This is simple editwar. He surely hasn't learned how to discuss. On second thoughts, I reported him on AN3, so you can review there, lest JCAla & DS accuse me of blockshopping (though they will still do it there). Wont bother you on the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- No need for me to intervene: you appear to have started a request for comment. That was indeed the best thing to do! Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do these two edits count as a violation? [13] [14]? He added tags instead of discussing in second. He has previous history of editwar on tags. Do you count these as reverts (I think any edits count towards it regardless of content)? And I didn't edit against him this time or drive him into one either, clearly he made a change and I reverted with a reason (I kept his edit with some corrections). This will continue under different pretext and get a blame on me. Also, you should tell him not to try this [15] when I wasn't editing against him (one being a removal of an IP's copy paste and the other being a revert against another user, not DS.. and by no way near to gaming him into an editwar since he's not even related to that edit). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Your view of an issue at Columbo
I am dragging around begging for help as usual. This- it bothers me. It is an uncited list of all the countries where Columbo was shown and is presently airing. It has nothing else, not even dates aside from "2012" listed next to the 1 or 2 countries where the show is airing. That, in my opinion, shouldn't even be there. A sentence stating "Columbo was and remains popular worldwide" seems sufficient. Input?- please reply on my talk or the article talk. If I don't get a sharp, accurate opinion I think that gigantic box with useless WP:TRIVIA will be kept there.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC help
Hey I started an RfC on Richard Feynman, but it was something I added a little bit later, and I subsequently added a more neutral question, but it doesn't appear to show up. How do I fix that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind, looks like I managed it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Told ya
[16] Has of course not bothered to use the talk page[17] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- While you were busy courteously proving that all claims regarding your battleground mentality are ill-advised, I was issuing a final warning to the editor de quo. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- No idea what you are on about, I do not see how a new editor who reverts only on one single article (the only one he has edited) constitutes a battlefield. A battlefield would be across more than one article no? I just saw your warning to him, so I will remove the one I left. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you settle a problem at Columbo?
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sal, I request your input on this[18]. I'm not accusing the other editor of edit warring, but it's starting to look that way because in general no one will comment on the talk page. I keep removing that list. That entire list of Golden Globes from 1968-whenever does NOT need to be there. Columbo awards are already clearly addressed.--Djathinkimacowboy 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe it belongs on the article... That template is quite useful when someone wants to jump from an artile about one Golden-Globe-winning show to another one. Many articles have those template and, to be honest, I don't understand why you think it's inappropriate... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sal, what has that entire list to do with Columbo? Isn't that the proper question? The award, if you'll look, is already mentioned along with all the show's other awards. Sal, if you will assist further, I don't need to endure things like this[19] when that editor and the other one simply refuse to talk on the talk page. They can't just keep having their way with that unproductive junk and then accuse me of these things. And this editor in particular just uses "please talk on talk page" as a blanket excuse- only twice has the editor input anything.--Djathinkimacowboy 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That list could be useful to an editor who's interested in the general topic of Golden Globes, for instances; it is a navigation template... Regarding the behavioural issue, the cycle is bold, revert, discuss, you were bold (removed the template), were reverted, a discussion should have ensued, not two other reverts (one by you and one by the other editor), but that's an incredibly minor issue, not even worthy of a message. I have also taken a look at Rangoon's edits to the article's talk page and, again, I see nothing warranting any kind of admin action either – he was commenting on your behaviour, on your edits, not on you: the distinction is disappointing and misleading behaviour (allowed) vs. you're a moron (disallowed). Granted, not terribly pleasant, but, if I can, just shrug it off. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sal. It's fine, I told Rangoon to keep the list and made my apologies which were neither acknowledged (nor even paid any mind, I suspect). OK, I can see it that way and shrug it off- this is what bothers me, when editors send these silly messages in the edit summaries then refuse to talk on the talk pages. Rangoon has been doing a lot of that. Can't we at least make these guys understand the edit summary is not the talk page of an article? Or are we just letting them do as they please without comment.... See, it isn't what they may say about me or my editing: it's what they do! Ben Franklin said, 'Better to hear the words "Well done" than to hear "Well said".'--Djathinkimacowboy 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, I wanted to put this to you another way, so that I'm clear, whilst (I hope!) not assuming bad faith. If an editor is working and reshaping an article- even just reorganising- and mindful of the rules, that's as it should be.
But then, other editors come along to start screaming their heads off and soon you have accusations of trolling and spamming. These are the same editors who order others to discuss on the talk pages of the articles, whilst they do no such thing as that. They communicate through snarky edit summaries.
So I want to ask you this: is this something I can somehow raise perhaps at the village pump? Or someplace a bit more highly profiled? The main point: the edit summary is no substitute for the article talk page and anyone avoiding the talk page is edit warring? That does not assume bad faith- that is addressing a big problem we have here.
Do you realise how many good editors are chased off articles because of this problem? Honestly. How many would you say are chased off, or too frightened to get involved?- too many, I have observed.
As I said to you above Sal, this isn't about me, my edits or the names I'm called. This is about the way some editors are working here, gaming the system and being supported in doing so. It needs to be reined in a bit.--Djathinkimacowboy 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let me emphasise one thing first: I understand where you're coming from and I don't wish to minimise this issue! I have taken a look at the article's history and Rangoon appears to have a (very, very mild, to be honest) WP:OWN issue. I also know that one of the most common reasons new editors stop editing is because their edits get constantly reverted. Now, you're no longer a newbie, but I know that the frustration one feels when all his edits are reverted is the very same. That said, there is very little any user can do. In cases such as this, there is no real venue – it's not edit warring, so no WP:ANEW, it's not really incivility, so no WP:WQA, and it's definitely nothing WP:ANI will do anything about –. You can raise the issue on Rangoon's talk page, if you think that'll be beneficial, but, apart from that, not much you can do... Sorry... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I know what you mean of course. But as I have been trying to tell you, it isn't about me or my edits. I told those editors they can do what they want. Nor do I wish to complain to get them into trouble or anything else- I want to have an influence in changing the way rules of editing are honoured here. Don't use the edit summary as if it were the talk page. Don't tell other people deliberately misleading things just so they will stop editing. Finally, as I well know, it isn't good to start hurling accusations. That is what I am talking about, getting some rules applied where they are most needed- nothing else. If I were to get into trouble along the way, it would be my own doing: that's the point. Everything an editor does is his own doing!--Djathinkimacowboy 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, I hadn't understood your goal, I'm sorry... In that case, yes, a thread on one of the village pumps (policy or proposals, I'd say, but that's not an area I'm particularly familiar with) would be the first step! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for being a terrific shoulder-to-lean-on, Salvio. Wish me luck, I'm trying to word a proposal now and shop round for the best place to have it discussed. It is tough for me, you know, I get so many enemies from the past and whenever I try something like this, here they come to insult my ideas and call me names. Gives me comfort that I heard something in the Tron: Legacy film and it struck me that I should do this A LOT moer often: remove myself from the equation. Of course that is an old Zen teaching but I have been a piss-poor Zen student.--Djathinkimacowboy 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible ARS list MfD relisting
The DRV I initiated on the MfD appears to have gotten some support for relisting. I am curious if you can tell me an appropriate and effective method that I could use to get more outside input since those most directly notified are obviously going to be people frequenting the page who are much more likely to support keeping it. Looking back at the TfD, Ironholds counted 89 editors who commented there. My preference would be not having to notify all those editors, and other interested editors who may not have commented there, manually.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand why you want to get more outside input; however, I don't know what methods can be used to publicise the discussion without violating Wikipedia's policies. DRV is watched by many uninvolved editors who have nothing to do with the ARS and, furthermore, everyone who has participated or even seen the two debates on WP:ANI will probably know about the deletion review. The only thing you could perhaps do would be to add a request for comment tag on the page. I don't know how that will go down, however.
That said, can I strongly suggest you drop the stick? I fear this might end badly: you saw the reactions to your filing the DRV... There comes a point when you just have to accept the consensus of the community and move on. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I saw something that makes an even stronger case for canvassing and the kind of problems ARS creates with this list. It has nothing to do with WP:STICK, because a true consensus has not been allowed to emerge. ARS cannot just rig "consensus" in their favor by flooding a discussion with votes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Salvio giuliano,
Extended content
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Yjune.sah, thanks for your kind note. However, I feel I have to decline. I'm very sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
MfD and subsidiary talk pages
Every now and again I come across content in subsidiary talk pages entitled Talk:X/Comments and similar. There are linked from the main talk page header and they cause the article to be added to a category such as Category:India_articles_with_comments. Of those that I have seen in the last week, none had any recent content (per history), none said anything that could not have been said on the main talk page, and none of them were signed/dated. At least one was a comment from 2008, the contents of which were completely banal. Are these candidates for MfD or do they have to stay there for ever? Is it permitted to merge the content into the main talk page and, indeed, is that even really feasible if archiving has been turned on & the comment would chronologically end up on an archived page?
An example is Talk:Barnwal/Comments, which appears to have been created as a consequence of an assessment made on 1 Feb 2007. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, technically those pages can be sent to MfD; there is a very high probability, however, that the very few people who'll comment during the discussion will say something along the lines of "meh, if we keep them where's the harm?". So, in short, I don't think the game is worth the candle. My advice is to just leave them alone; chances are nobody will ever get to see them... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case. However, leaving alone means that the category list just keeps growing. Does that not become a problem, if only from a maintenance point of view? - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know... To tell the truth, I don't even know what the purpose of such a category can possibly be. Perhaps the best idea would be to discuss the issue at WP:INB and see what the members of the WikiProject think. If there emerged a consensus that those pages are all superfluous, they could be speedied per WP:G6 as housekeeping, without having to go through WP:MFD... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Re this edit summary: Is there some policy/guideline that prohibits people from discussing a case on one of its talk pages after it is closed? I can understand closing down the evidence/workshop/PD pages, but the talk pages? That doesn't make sense to me. Where better to discuss a case than there? Or, is discussion of a case not allowed once its closed? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best just add {{archive top}} (and bottom) tags to that without reverting anything. I was concerned about the developments there myself. See User_talk:AlexandrDmitri#.CE.94_case. As for a general venting place after a case is closed, the "discuss this" link points to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Betacommand_3_closed for this one. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)After a case has been closed, its various pages should no longer be edited – with few exceptions, such as logs, motions, amendments. In this instance, if you want to comment on the case, you can do it here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please stipulate where in policy / guideline that this is the case? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's commonsense, I'd say. If you disagree, feel free to raise the issue on WT:ARBCOM. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your common sense isn't my common sense. However, thank you for confirming this isn't written in policy / guideline. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you object to me restoring the comments you removed, then adding the archive top / bottoms as ASCIIn2Bme suggests? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- ? Why? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Justice: why keep those comments, when all the others will be removed? Or are you suggesting that, as long as they're placed between the archivetop/archivebottom templates, all subsequent comments should be kept? The point is that the case is closed. And closed means closed: no more comments on the proposed decision (which is no longer proposed but is actually enacted), no more evidence, no more workshop proposals. Les jeux sont faits. If anyone wants to comment on the final decision, they can do it in the appropriate venue, of course, but the case is closed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It does some justice to this unwritten rule (and actually to the whole situation), that the first editor to violate it was actually one of the Arbitrators in the case. Actually, they violated it twice (diff, diff). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think perhaps this unwritten rule needs to be codified somewhere. I inspected the PD talk pages from all 16 of the 2011 cases. I found 6 cases where discussion on those pages continued after closure; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Only in #3 of that list is there any movement to move discussion elsewhere, and some of the post closure discussion is still there. Continuing discussions without intervention post closure happened in 5 of 16 cases, and was partially 'allowed' in the 6th. The only other case than this one in 2012 allowed it too 7. I'm seeing similar patterns into 2010. What do you think Salvio? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's interesting and I think I'll start a discussion with my fellow clerks and with the members of ArbCom as soon as the bulk of the ongoing cases is closed, so that we can formalise a clear policy. That said, I'm not going to change my decision, in this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I found 4 of 12 cases in 2010 where discussion edits continued past closure without intervention, and none with intervention. If you include the one other case this year, that's 10 of 29 without intervention, and an 11th with intervention. The common practice seems to be to allow the discussions to continue, and this is exemplified by a number of arbitrator edits to those discussions, post close. I'm not trying to be critical here, but the evidence seems to indicate your removal is not in line with common practices as exemplified by the last two years of arbitration. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Hammersoft, I find this information very helpful. I actually think that those discussions should continue. I think that deletion of those posts like here, especially without precedent, is giving a bad signal - it could be interpreted that the ArbCom is actually actively trying to stop any discussion about their decisions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not that it matters in this case, this discussion is now, unfortunately, stopped, and I don't think it will revive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Translation and notification request
I see you are a native Italian speaker. Do you think you can find a bit of time to translate m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users in Italian an notify the their Wikipedia? The proposal is the only important part. Feel free to improvise on the background since it's not exactly formal the way I wrote it there. Sandstein did something similar for the dewiki. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm starting it now. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Almost forgot about this. Thank you! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-admin closure of DRV
User:S Marshall closed the DRV per WP:NAC, but it does not fit the criteria for satisfying such a closure. I asked the editor to re-open it, but he has refused and made comments suggesting he was not being objective about the closure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- With regard to the deletion review, I cannot do anything, as I consider myself involved, being the original MfD closer. I see, however, that you're brought the matter to WP:ANI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Want to take a look?
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Salvio, I made a proposal I hope will draw discussion at the village pump. This is not about you, I want you to know that - you're welcome to come comment but I don't insist that you do so. Just wanted to drop you a line. I wish there were a way to invite other editors and admins to comment if they want. Anyway, read the proposal and tell me what you think of it.--Djathinkimacowboy 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a way:
{{rfc}}
. That said, I think the proposal is sound, but I'll hold off on commenting on it for a bit, because, basically, I don't know what I could add or how the issue could be tackled... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio, to answer your questions: I was wondering whether a newer and more specific tag than just "rfc" could be created to ask for the specific kind of help. Something requiring the answering admin to then alter the tag once it's been addressed, rather than just removing the tag because it's been noted.
Notice that with the tags we have now, it is totally ignored or the admins are scared to look into it. Even if they look, they say nothing. It would be like a 'mild RFC', the way they used to be in the old days. Seems like these days it's some kind of big fat deal to request comment.
Only this time I hope the thing would be treated more seriously and examined fairly. That does not happen as often as I'd like to see now.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is
{{adminhelp}}
, but in these cases it's not appropriate, as this is a content dispute and we, as admins, carry no particular authority over them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio, I did it and at least got one editor over to post and assist. Salvio, I wished to trouble you once more by asking you to have a look at what's being done. Begin here[20] to see what Rangoon began as compared to the article as it is now, and I'll then provide links showing all his subsequent edits: 1[21], 2[22], 3[23], and 4[24]. You'll see, they're all fairly good edits, albeit it somewhat nitpicking and not in the best style. But it is per talk page discussion in spite of the fact that Rangoon keep defiantly refusing to post one single comment or query. I also want you to note that Rangoon is sneaking in reversions of certain edits, and neglecting to explain it in the edit summaries. My point is that the effort to improve the article worked to a degree, but it took you and Ged UK to get involved... and still Rangoon11 edits away without a word on the talk page. Rangoon11 then, like all of us, should be ready to be edited/corrected as needed. This is what I wish, with my new proposal, that this type of editing be shaped up a bit with a new rule such as I have proposed.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your goal and I sincerely hope your proposal gets some attention! I can only say that if Rangoon refuses to engage in the consensus-building process going on on the article's talk page, then he'll just have to accept whatever consensus will be achieved there. It may take longer and be a bit frustrating, but when you follow Wikipedia's processes, the results you obtain are usually more stable – and more easily enforceable... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I was thinking about what you said, earlier post- I wonder why admins have nothing to contribute to content disputes. There's a lot of nasty trouble that originates with content disputes. Wouldn't happen if admins helped to make suggestions that would end the disputes. But as you say, admins have no 'authority'. I always thought- and was always told- an admin is nothing more than an editor with a few extra 'buttons'. That being the case, why can't an admin actually help constructively in content disputes? That would also stop edit warring and discourage editors from trying to start edit wars.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sal, I am a pest. I know it. But I want your input about the earlier problem of all that crap on the main Columbo page. Have you seen this: List of Columbo episodes? Why hasn't the TV series data from Columbo been moved to that other article? It wasn't even linked from Columbo until I just added it 5 minutes ago. That thing is a mindless mess. I'm afraid to fool with the tables and mounds of data, knowing I'll screw it up or lose something in the move.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding content disputes, admins can (and do) contribute. What I meant is that we contribute as editors, not as administrators, meaning that our opinion does not carry particular weight due to the fact that we hold a mop. Regarding the List of Columbo episodes, my personal opinion is that all information regarding Columbo as a series belong in the Columbo article, all information regarding Columbo as a fictitious character belong in a Frank Columbo article and all information regarding the episodes, considered in their individuality, belong in the List of Columbo episodes article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just came here to query this rv and the associated edit summary ([25]) and I discover the above discussion, much of which should be on the Talk page of the Columbo talk page, and much of the rest which is little more than Djathinkimacowboy making attacks on my editing style behind my back. This is all pretty tawdry. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- And it gets better - I look higher up this page and find another thread which is more of the same. Very poor form.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I should add that personally I don't enjoy spending time discussing and analysing either the editing behaviour of others or of myself. I much prefer to spend my time editing. I freely and happilly acknowledge that Djathinkimacowboy has done a lot of work on the Columbo article which I support and feel has improved the article. I think that we are broadly on the same page, and I have only reverted a small proportion of their edits to the article, and they were largely pretty minor (and the same is true the other way, Djathinkimacowboy has only reverted a small number of my edits as well). I have actually engaged the Talk page of that article, including to support a proposal made by Djathinkimacowboy. We actually agree far more than we disagree.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sal, my apologies for all this. Rangoon11, you refuse to participate at all, you are not one to talk here. You make absolutely ridiculous accusations considering you're not willing to discuss anything, and since I've also caught you trying to falsely accuse me. Don't bring your arguments onto Sal's page. Sal, guess you saw this[26] and probably realise by now that Rangoon11 will be a lot more of a problem than we had hoped. Naturally it was this[27] caught your attention.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio, with your permission, and perhaps your participation, I'd like to be fair to Rangoon and excise the pertinent portions of this thread- and move them in boxed-quotation form to Talk:Columbo. Will you please advise.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let my subsection here[28] be noted. It is part of the rfc and I have invited any admin to read then delete the thread if desired. Salvio, you may move or delete this thread if you wish. I'll understand.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is just too pathetic for words. Djathinkimacowboy you are all over the place, and seem to prefer wasting time on tedious finger pointing - when your own behaviour is in fact decidely uncivil, uncooperative and indeed strange - than focusing on what we are actually here to do (or I am here to do at least. I take an extremely dim view of the way that you have selectively copied part of my post above on the Columbo Talk page - pathetic, childish and unconstructive, just like the way you have been making comments here about me behind my back. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You must hear this
Sal, I just read this in the above section:
This is just too pathetic for words. Djathinkimacowboy you are all over the place, and seem to prefer wasting time on tedious finger pointing - when your own behaviour is in fact decidely uncivil, uncooperative and indeed strange - than focusing on what we are actually here to do (or I am here to do at least. I take an extremely dim view of the way that you have selectively copied part of my post above on the Columbo Talk page - pathetic, childish and unconstructive, just like the way you have been making comments here about me behind my back. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, I am afraid I have a small lecture for you. I don't want to seem angry or ungrateful! You should have just come over to the talk page instead of dialoguing here with me- I know I came here, but only to ask for help. Now you have Rangoon11 accusing me repeatedly of 'talking about him behind his back'. It certainly looks that way and I shouldn't have continued to post like this here. But Salvio, you should have come and posted at Talk:Columbo. One post in this matter would have been sufficient; your name is respected. You chose instead to avoid posting anything and thus encouraged Rangoon to just keep doing what he's doing. I'm sorry. It had to be said. Don't take this wrongly.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't take this wrongly and, trust me, there are no hard feelings on my part; however, I feel I have to ask you to please stop posting on my talk page unless mandated by Wikipedia's policies. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio, I certainly read your post above- I just have to ask something. The previous trouble is 100% resolved. It was very pesky of me to post so much here. What I want to know is, are you saying you want me to stay off here for good? Usually I count on your advice- did you mean for me never to post on here again? I'll do it gladly, because you ask it of me, but I just want to be certain. It won't happen again, if that is what you meant by it. You should reply my talk page, if it makes it any easier for you.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Just please note I'm sorry I felt I had to ask you this. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Salvio. I was looking at the RfPP request for Cunnilingus, and I was actually inclined to protect it—there are no productive IP edits in the recent history, and it seems to get the same sort of childish drive-by vandalism every few days—so I'd be curious to hear your rationale for declining it (reasonable minds may differ, after all). TPSs whose eyebrows were raised at the section heading are welcome to comment! ;). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought that semi-protection was not warranted because, all in all, the article receives few edits by non-autoconfirmed editors, and though many of them are vandalism, not all are (for istance, these, [29] [30], appear to have been made in good faith). Considering the edits the article receives are few and far between, I thought that level of vandalism would not be too onerous on vandal fighters to tackle... But if you think that those edits are too few and the game isn't worth the candle, please do feel free to protect the article. P.S. Best. Section title. Ever. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Semi-PP at Kashmiri Pandit
Any chance of a 24 hour semi-pp at Kashmiri Pandit? A New York IP is back playing their old tricks with unsourced POV. They're hopping a bit, as in the past. No worries if you are busy - I'll send it to RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the NY Library-ish IP has responded on the talk page & mentions you. See this, which includes my move of their comment for chronological reasons. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Shoot, Sitush, our secret is out... Thanks for the note. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Marathon
- You're welcome. Should vandals hit again as soon as protection expires, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Under discussion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Under discussion. 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) 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
That pesky 1 RR thing again
Can crap like this [31] please be exempted from the sanction? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't intend to appear dumb, but why do you define that as crap? Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Red Alert: The War Within Do you honestly think it is notable enough for an article? They have not even gotten the name of the protagonist correct. But if you think any old junk can be an internal,if for no other reason than preventing an orphan tag, fine by me. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I asked because the addition seemed made in good faith, though it's probably unneeded there. That said, it's a content issue, so, no, it's not exempted from the 1-rr. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- And if the revert beforehand were this one [32]? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, you'd be reverting two different editors adding completely different content; I would not consider it a violation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK thank you, I just wanted to know were the line was. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- As a rule of thumb, when two edits are entirely unrelated and made by different editors you can undo them without violating this restriction. It is meant to get you to discuss our edits, not to prevent you from improving articles when multiple editors make multiple, inappropriate edits. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Please assist if you are willing
Please ensure I have properly published this appeal,[33] Advise me accordingly and if you have sufficient time, may I request your participation as clerk? One thing I would like to ask is that I request a stringent determination to uphold the highest expectations of "reasonably, civilly, and with decorum". My76Strat (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- As you've been informed, your request was malformed. If you want to ask that Betacommand's ban be reviewed, you have to present a request for amendment. Copy the following code
Extended content
== Request to amend prior case: Case name ==
'''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Example}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Principle 1
# Finding 2
# Remedy 3
; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Username1}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Username2}}
* {{userlinks|Username3}}<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->
; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/?sample-diff Username2] (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/?sample-diff Username3] (repeat above for all parties)
===Amendment 1===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Details of desired modification
==== Statement by your username ====
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
==== Statement by other editor ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
===Amendment 2===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Details of desired modification
==== Statement by your username (2) ====
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
==== Statement by other editor (2) ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*
----
- and then add it here.
Not speaking as a clerk, now, please be aware, however, that your request is very unlikely to be accepted. And will probably only result in you wasting your time... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance and counsel. I think I have been given much to consider, from multiple editors in good faith. The most prudent action I can take at this time is to reconsider several relevant factors. And resume this action if the fuller consideration supports the merits of doing so. Again thank you. My76Strat (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- If it is not improper, will you please userfy Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of Betacommand 3 to User:My76Strat/Malformed appeal without a redirect? My76Strat (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it's not improper, so Done. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your proficiency and good faith approach to propriety is a testament of your service as an administrator. Your actions consistently reflect favorably on your own, well appreciated value, and brings credit to the entire admin body. At times I prefer stating these things than to leave them presumed. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I am a tad embarassed , but many thanks for your kind words! Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Neolloa999
You blocked Neolloa999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) the other day for edit warring. Since then they have created two sockpuppets, 1tisore1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ewans0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), to continue the war, both of which I blocked. Can you review and see if I should be trouted for blocking the puppets, if Neolloa999's block should be reset and/or the page should be semi-protected. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind message!
And no need for trouts : those were two clear WP:DUCKs you caught there. And, for that, I have just increased Neolloa999's block to a week. That said, I don't really have any opinion regarding page protection, so I'll defer to your judgement! Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your assistance. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rschen7754 04:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
full protection on Rick Santorum?
Hello - please see these comments - I don't know what went into your decision to fully protect the article, because I don't see any rationale posted other than a vague edit summary, but I think protecting for three days is overkill and unnecessary, and not an appropriate action when essentially one editor is misbehaving. In any case, it appears that he has agreed to stay away from this article, so if that was your reason, you really should return the article to its semi-protection, so that long-standing good faith editors can continue improving the article directly. Unexplained full protection is really not right for an article that is high-profile and has over 500 people watching, who can quickly revert any real vandalism. Please change the protection level to semi now, rather than have it play out another two days. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You present a reasoned request. I am confident you are addressing a reasoned administrator so logic should undoubtedly prevail. I am strictly devils advocate here, but what is the harm of imposed stabilization of an article in flux for two days? My76Strat (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- An article being in flux is not a good reason for full protection which in my view should be used sparingly and only in cases of extreme edit warring. And then only after sufficient warnings to the editors who are engaged in such edit war, or at least general warnings on the article's talk page. I'm in favor of semi-protection for an article like this, to protect against drive-by vandalism, and I wish we had instituted some kind of flagged revisions as the community repeatedly has called for - but meanwhile I think it is important that editors be able to edit. Tvoz/talk 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I substantially agree with your assertions here and above. My76Strat (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Admins do not have to post an explanation as to why an article was protected on its talk page. They can, if they wish.
- I do not appreciate your tone on the article's talk page and on AN.
- There was not only one editor misbehaving. Over the last few days, there had been various, intertwining, minor edit wars being fought in parallel. Diffs of the most serious one: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Even without taking into consideration Youreallycan's edits, protection was, therefore, warranted, in my opinion.
- I'm not going to unprotect the article. If you want it unprotected, please ask here.
- Finally, next time you don't understand something an administrator does, politely ask him. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see my response at User_talk:Viriditas#WP:AN_notice. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
← Salvio, thank you for the explanation. I understand that admins aren't required to post reasons for taking actions, but I hope you'd see how frustrating it is for good faith editors who have not been involved in a dispute and find the page fully protected without seeing warnings or clear explanation, and how helpful it is for all editors, including those who are creating the problem, to see an explanation posted so that they can understand what is going on and work with the other editors in finding solutions. This is especially true when you are talking about a fully protected page for one of the leading contenders for the presidential nomination in the height of primary season. In my experience as a lead editor of several of these types of articles in 2007-2008 (and also editing them now), full protection was rarely imposed, and if it was, it was clear to all why it was and it was very short-term. Usually problems were dealt with by dealing with the offending editors, or an admin shepherding a discussion to resolve disputes. Fully locking down these pages, in my view, is problematic because of the constantly changing situation and the need to have it accessible for improvements, additions, etc., by editors across the spectrum, to keep it unbiased and thorough. And locking down only one candidate's article creates an imbalance. When I asked the question on the article's talk page, which I think is the appropriate place to start, I was told it was because of one editor's vulgar edits, which would obviously be a textbook case for dealing with the editor, not the page. I only went to AN because there was a discussion going on there about that editor, so I asked the question there. I'm sorry that my tone seemed impolite to you, but that wasn't my intention - I was, and am, quite concerned about the inability to directly edit there, and I hope that you or another admin will step up and delineate the problem and help them work it out - this solution on its own seems hit-or-miss. By the way, I don't at all expect that you'd be available 24 hours a day to respond to such questions, which is partly why I asked it on AN when it appeared that the reason was the one editor being addressed there. I think that if this problem was so obvious and so severe as to require the extraordinary action of full protection, someone else might have given an explanation when the question was raised. So, I'm sorry I offended you, and I hope you can see why absent any clear explanation - especially since you say you were responding to what you say were several minor intertwining edit wars which I did not find to be immediately obvious - I would raise the question elsewhere. I'm hopeful this will be resolved quickly, as these pages need to be open (that is, semi-protected) for editing. Tvoz/talk 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. And many thanks for your clarification here; I really appreciate it. Regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Rollback: May not want it afterall
Thank you very much for granting my request for rollback. However, I may want to have you remove it.
While its nice to have the rollback option at my fingertips, I have since installed twinkle so to have the flexibility of reverting non-vandalism edits while generating standard edit summary when reverting more than one edit at a time. In other words, what I really was after was to be able to revert to last edit by a previous user (a clean version) after multiple unwanted edits by a single user and still have an edit summary automatically generated in the form Reverting edits by xxx.xx.xxx to last version by Joe Blow with the reverted user linked. I like this common edit summary but don't wish to have to manually type it out myself.
So I have just installed twinkle, which appears to give me this capability, though I have yet to actually try it out. I was under the impression that I need rollback rights to use twinkle. That isn't true though, is it?
Now as for rollback. If I don't need the rollback right to use twinkle, then I don't think I want rollback at all. My reason is primarily because of the "hot" rollback links all over my watchlist and page histories. I am fearful accidentally "rollbacking" someone's edit. I am using a laptop with a touch pad, not a clickable mouse or anything. I also sometimes edit from my iPhone; just the thought of trying that now...well you see what I mean.
Is there a way to confine the rollback links to the diff window only? If not, and if I don't need it to run twinkle, please remove my rollback rights. Thank you--Racerx11 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
In my above post, I meant the hot rollback links all over my watchlist and user contributions, not page histories (there would be only one there, right). Also just to clarify, I will wait for your response before giving you my final descision on removing rollback for me.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have experienced that very same problem myself – though I actually have rollbacked edits in error a couple of times, due to the rollback icon on my watchlist – and there is a way to prevent the button from appearing on your watchlist: you just have to add
/* hide rollback from Recent Changes */
.page-Special_RecentChanges .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
/* hide rollback from Watchlist */
.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
.page-Special_Contributions .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
- to your vector.css page (or monobook.css, if this the skin you use). I am not aware of any trick that would allow you to remove the rollback button from the user contributions page, however...
That said, this user right is not needed to install and use Twinkle, just to use Huggle or Igloo.
I'll wait for you to confirm that you actually no longer want this flag and, if so, then, I'll remove it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is Huggle that needs rollback rights. Yeah, that's where I got that from. It sounds like Huggle may also have the capability to revert multiple non-vandalism edits, provide default edit summary and still allow additional comments in edit summaries. I might try it also and see which works best for me, so I will have to keep rollback for now. I will also try your trick to remove rollback from my watchlist. Thanks for you help and I will get back to you later.--Racerx11 (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you know where to find me if you need anything. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion
I think the civility enforcement case is the second one where people, aware or not of the rules and/or case closure, continue to post on its PD page. Perhaps in cases which saw a high volume of edits, it's perhaps better to explicitly mark the case talk pages closed and direct future comments at the appropriate ArbCom noticeboard thread. That should result in fewer reverts being necessary, fewer rumblings on clerks' talk pages, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was starting to think the very same thing... I believe I'll start a discussion with arbs and clerks and everyone else who's interested to determine what's the best procedure to follow after a case closes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Block evasion at Arora
You blocked an IP a few hours ago for warring/POV at Arora. They are back as a different IP. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked. If they're back once again, please let me know and I'll semi the article. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- They're back. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have given you a week. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you think some people set up reminders for semi-p'd articles that they're interested in messing with? This thing has only been unprotected for six days, after a long period of semi. It is weird. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible, yep – and I had missed the fact that semi-protection had just expired, sigh. If they come back as soon as my semi-protection expires, I'll protect for a year (you can quote me on that, if I grow forgetful ). Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Purely for my own information, what is the longest semi-protection of which you are aware? Never mind, I realized that there is indefinite semi protection. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a curious bit of info, the longest, non-indefinite semi-protection should be that of Cake, scheduled to expire on 31.01.2015, according to this page. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Crumbs! That one must have been bad. Regarding your earlier reply, well, why not set up a reminder for yourself. Alternatively, why not just lockdown the entire project, eh? And don't forget to turn the light out as you go :) - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am, sadly, one of those people who either forget to add things to their organizer, or neglect to consult it or directly misplace it, so that they can no longer find it... She who must often reminds me of the many things I have apparently failed to remember in that shrill way only a loving partner knows. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am blessed with a reasonable memory but otherwise share that "don't note" trait. Leo McKern and John Mortimer: two good ones, gone. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep! I loved them both (McKern is an actor I've always really, really liked – he was fabolous in The Prisoner! –), and Rumpole was a great character. I doubt anyone else could have played him that masterfully, though I have to admit that I've also always found Claude Erskine-Brown incredibly funny... Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Protected??
Hi, Salvio. I was in hospital (Appeal to pity) from 11 to 21 February, and thus didn't get to follow the closing stages of the Civility Enforcement case. I'm interested, however, and as soon as I got home, I read up on it and spent a long time typing up a comment for the Proposed Decision talkpage. I know it's belated, probably nobody cares anymore, etc (even though it only just closed, and I notice quite a lively discussion of some aspects going on on NYBrad's talkpage). Anyway, it simply never occurred to me that the talkpage might be protected so only admins can post on it. (I, for example, am not an admin.) Are unedifying comments feared, have they already been offered, or wtf? Is this remotely normal practice? The case was closed on 21 Feb, and apparently you promptly then fully protected the PD talkpage — only that one page — giving the reason "The case has been closed". Yeah it's been closed. So? Eventually they all get closed. The Betacommand 3 case was closed on 15 February, for instance and nobody seems to have taken a notion to protect the corresponding page of that (nor any other part of it). And, no other page of the civility case has been protected. Not the Proposed Decision page itself, not Evidence or Evidence talk, not.. etc, you get my drift.
I note the section "Suggestion" above. But you didn't exactly mark Proposed Decision talk "closed" and direct future discussion somewhere else, did you? You acted far more drastically (if I was annoyed, instead of gently sad and disappointed, I would have said "draconically" there) and locked the page down without explanation and without suggesting any alternative venue. As for the suggestion to mark talkpages "closed", even that would be pretty unusual. Pages like "Evidence" and "Workshop" have frequently, as in this case, been marked with a polite request that users not edit them any more (though nobody's actually prevented from doing so). That seems appropopriate. But their talkpages haven't been "closed", as IMO they shouldn't in fact be. (Let alone protected, or, a fortiori, fully protected.
Please unprotect Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision. I want to post a comment on it. It's a comment on the voting on the PD page, so the page you protected seems the obvious place for it. But if you know of a page that you have good reason to think better for my purpose, please share. Quick action would be appreciated. Regards, Bishonen | talk 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
- I'm really sorry to hear of your health problems and I do hope you feel better now!
I protected the PD talk page for a couple of days, because the case has been closed, so there is no point in commenting on a proposed decision, which is no longer proposed. Protection should expire tomorrow, but I have to please ask to refrain from posting there. If you wish to comment on the case, you should post your message here. As a side note, the workshop talk page was briefly protected by the drafting admin. Best regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like your opinion
Hello Salvio, I'd like your opinion on my opinion raised here. You have recently deleted a page and I wonder if I am off track to suggest an admin shouldn't delete their own pages? My76Strat (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in this case, you're off track. User request in userspace has always been viewed as housekeeping, and it has always been acceptable for an admin to delete their own pages in userspace. You'll find most admins that use multiple userspaces have done it at one time or another to delete sandboxes that they have finished with. The only time it would be a problem in my opinion would be if an admin deleted their talkpage, as usertalk pages are not supposed to be deleted anyway. If you want to get the practice changed, you can make a suggestion at Village pump (policy), but I suspect you'd need a good reason for why one might want to prevent a page being deleted in userspace for it to get any traction. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Elen, here. Speedy deletions per U1 and G7 are pretty much the most uncontroversial tasks an admin can perform – with the caveat that a sysop should not be deleting his own talk page. There is no point in asking another admin to delete a subpage in my userspace, when a. I'm sure he will delete it and b. I could do it myself. I think it can only increase the backlog of pages waiting to be speedily deleted... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both. It is not a big issue, more of a peeve perhaps. And yes I had observed that it is relatively common. I also understand that it is regarded as routine housekeeping. I have a slightly different opinion, but it amounts to small potatoes. Again however, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. My76Strat (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Elen, to be clear, are you saying there is no conflict with the "irrevocable release of one's contributions" and the ability of a user to delete sub-pages, having no other endorsement? Salvio, you rightfully mention that a significant effort by admins are these kinds of user requested deletions; the distinction is that their request is endorsed, and I feel it is unlikely that you would delete content that you believed was suited for and relevant to the encyclopedia. In fact, what would be a valid reason for an admin to decline deleting s user's sub-page? I do believe, at minimum when an admin deletes their own contributions, it should be flagged to a queue to be endorsed properly. How wrong are these notions? My76Strat (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Request to delete a user sub-page
Hi Salvio. Could you please delete User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper/Sandbox incl. the talkpage. I just moved it to a new location. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- DoneI was passing and have deleted both. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Loose ends
Hi Salvio. Now that the ArbCom case is over, this can probably be re-deleted, no? 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks for reminding me! I have just deleted the page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you revert my user talk page
Please explain this edit. There seems no attempt to provide any explanation in either the edit summary or on the talk page itself. Is the bot not properly authorised? Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please see this discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Revert
Hey. Sorry, but why did you reverted my talk page? Cheers — Tomica (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)