Hi, and thanks for the Reviewer status. I have no idea whether I'll ever use it, but we'll see. I'm slightly baffled that I've never been offered it before, as a whole gang of people I deal with regularly seem to have had it for ages - perhaps they all spotted new users with foul usernames before I did - but it didn't bother me enough to apply. Also thanks for the top icon thingy (looks as if you're short of things to do). I was just spotting the offset= in the code, but would probably have spent another half-hour (or half-day) getting it to work. Best. --GuillaumeTell22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Helping with MoMK
Giuliano, Wikid77 here. Thank you for taking time to help with the MoMK article– it is refreshing to have an admin there who "cannot" indef-block everyone! I realize you are extremely busy (as you've been for months), but a belated congratulations on your adminship. I would have supported your RfA (but only discovered it after closure) because I noticed you have worked so hard on thousands of articles and, I think, you earned this adminship. Well, they wanted you to create more articles, so I am thinking you could create 2 new articles:
new article "Penale.it" - or similar name, because that seems to be a notable website;
new article "Rules of evidence in Italy" - or such, because people said Kercher luminol evidence was withheld from defence beyond a maximum time limit in the Italian criminal court.
I was thinking those would be valuable articles to have, and while perhaps you might feel creating new articles is too strong an influence, I was thinking if you create more new articles (such as for rules of evidence), then it might help others have more confidence in your WP experience levels.
Meanwhile, at MoMK, we are preparing for the Knox/Sollecito DNA hearings (for 21 May 2011?) where there was a rumor the bra clasp was "rusty" but the Massei Motivatione cites the DNA expert saying the clasp is aluminum (British: "aluminium"), and Stefanoni said the DNA profiling test can be repeated (a large sample was collected from both hooks). The 1st sample matched a mix of DNA, 6-to-1 ratio of Kercher DNA to Sollecito DNA, but note the 2nd (untested) sample could be nearly all Kercher DNA because 6-to-1 is already ~86% Kercher. The Sapienza University (in Rome) might conclude the 2nd sample matched 0% of Sollecito DNA (all Kercher or other people). Also, there are rumors of no Knox DNA on the knife handle, so if no Knox DNA (on knife), then would the charge of "carrying a knife" (across town) be dropped in court, or would the jury have to decide "innocente" on that criminal charge? In some U.S. courts, if there is no remaining "corroborating evidence" then criminal charges must be dropped, or convictions overturned, and the suspects are freed. The new judge has considered issuing an order to allow dismantling the knife handle, if they feel they need to analyze the inside (if there is an "inside" to that type of knife handle). We have added police-photo images to MoMK to provide wider coverage to readers, so I will try to find a police photo of the knife for a fair-use rationale. The MoMK article will likely become one of the
However, this year, the American film, Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (premiered 21 Feb. 2011 in U.S.) has doubled the interest in the MoMK article. I am trying to keep this message short, so those are issues to consider. Thanks again for giving time to MoMK issues. More later. -Wikid7714:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the page it was moved from got used as well (which is why I didn't just undo the move). I'll revert to my c&p version, if you don't mind, as it has stuff in that the merge doesn't seem to (that was on the page to start with). Thanks anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The c&p was about me, sorry. I took the contents out of the wrong page and added them to the right one. The user moved his user stuff to mainspace because his name wasn't User:Whatever it was Whatever. He's 15 and put up stuff about his new social network, and pages about himself under szeveral different versions of his name. I'm not going to try to explain the redirects again. I'll do the revert and go out to move a pond liner (a neighbour's wanting the use of my trailer - good chance to get my head straight after this lot). I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on this one if you're staying online. Thanks for helping... 8-) Peridon (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And I'll keep an eye on this guy. If he keeps this up, I'll block until he understands how we do things here.
Hi Salvio giulianao: One piece of vandalism I don't know how to undo is the sneaky insertion of this user's artwork into a previous file [2]. In the meantime I deleted the image from several articles, rather than deface them with the attendant self-promotion. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a userbox version go here.
You are member number: 41
Thanks for your help with that MedCab case, were it not for your advice I probably would have had been stuck in an avalanche full of stress! Thanks very much Salvio :) —James(Talk • Contribs) • 11:05am •01:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was wrong with it.
Wiki is Crap. The wiki page was the truth What you deleted and wasn't doin nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.64.57 (talk)
I was trying to inform readers about a company and you deleted. you are the third person to do this. Why does everyone have a grudge with 5LINX!!! It's just a company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike28968 (talk • contribs)
Because the content of the article was 5linx is a rapidly growing telecommunications company that provides VoIPservices and more across the United States and in 20 countries abroad, which means that it failed to indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a a means to advertise. Therefore, it only has articles about notable entities.
When I came across said page I believed it was obviously an attack page. I do not understand why it is not. Could you please clear things up for me? (Please use talkback) Thanks! illogicalpie21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, criterion G10 was created having in mind pages like John Doe is a rapist or my English teacher is an idiot or Corporation Y is a den of thieves; in my opinion the page did not qualify as an attack page because it only described a product and was not merely attacking it.
Personal internet security 2011 is actually a malware, as you can confirm by googling for it. So, in my opinion, to call it a malware does not make the article an attack page, although the article needed more than a bit of trimming...
Illogicalpie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
That's IT
I tried to follow what you said in the last deletion of 5LINX. I read the guidelines and rewrote my article. Instead of trying to help me, you stretched your luck and deleted 5LINX AGAIN! I need to know why you keep deleteing my pages because now I am NOT playing MR. nice guy.22:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's here: User:Mike28968/5LINX, back in your userspace. At the moment, it's vaguely spammy and doesn't assert notability. Before moving it back into mainspace, please make sure it is written in a neutral tone and it explains why this corporation meets our notability criteria, having received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. And, then, if you wish, ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK. SalvioLet's talk about it!22:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you've read my conflict of interest notice too - it's best if you edit something not related to 5LINX. Unfortunately, even if you read our guidelines, your article did not live up to that, namely because of its tone and the lack of 3rd-party sources.Jasper Deng(talk)01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say that a good practice would be to look at the article's history and if you see that the only edit was made by an established user who was tagging the page (be it for speedy or prod or afd or with a maintenance tag), then I'd say that it's safe to assume that the article was tagged and deleted almost at the same time and, so, the page was created by mistake. When it's not so evident, however, I'd say that the best course of action is to ask the page creator just to make sure.. SalvioLet's talk about it!19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the mfd nomination and the commenting out of the categories?
I'd rather not, as they contain a link to the mfd and let users know what happened. Furthermore, I've reverted to the last "good" version; so, I don't think they need to go so badly, unless I broke a rule I was unaware of... SalvioLet's talk about it!19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal, though it clutters the history. If Wikipedia:Parallel history#A troublesome case occurred (for example, edits were made to Gary W. Kronk on 18 April 2011 or 19 April 2011, then the overlapping history would be very confusing. However that is not the case here.
The link to the MfD can be seen in your move, so it is unnecessary to preserve the other revisions. I don't mind leaving things as they are, but perhaps you could keep this in mind for the future? Cunard (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, you dropped off this juristic quotation in the above article:
In his, quae contra rationem iuris constituta sunt, non possumus sequi regulam iuris.
--Iulianus, liber 27 digestorum
Please provide a translation, or where I could obtain one. I can guess at its meaning. I've used a dictionary but, of course, the declensions and conjugations are impediments.
Thank you very much for your translation. Spurred by it, I've found a source for Julian's text in the Digest of Justinian, 1.3.15. Prof. Alan Watson (1985) translates it: "We cannot follow a rule of law in instances where there has been a decision against the ratio juris." So, also therefore, I understand you were not named after the illustrious Roman jurist.
On another matter, perhaps I may solicit your advice or assistance. There are now three articles on Wikipedia about the same person. Unfortunately this month I wrote the longest and most recent. The problem lies in transliterating Arabic and Turkish. Also, the person in question, Khayr al-Din al-Tunsi, or Khaireddin Pasha, etc., was complicated. A Circassian, as a youth he was brought to Tunisia where decades later he became the Grand Vizier for four eventful years of reform (1873-1877), preceding the French protectorate (1881). He returned to Istanbul where for several uneventful months he was Grand Vizier (1878-1879). The question before me concerns not merely the spelling of the title for the merged article, but the redirects and re-redirects, etc., that is, how to organize the whole array and do the steps necessary to get there. It is new terrain for me on Wikipedia. Elfelix (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the relevant policy regarding article titles is WP:COMMONNAME. Assuming that your article has the "common" title and contains all the bits of info the other two contain, I'd say to just be bold and turn the other two pages into redirects, to see if anybody objects, in which case propose a merge — following these instructions —. If your article doesn't have the common title, then my advice would be to edit the article that meets the criteria and improve it with content from your own article, then turning the other two pages into redirects. If, on the contrary, you prefer a discussion, to see what consensus is, you can just ask for a merge and see how the discussion goes. Hope this helps. Cheers. SalvioLet's talk about it!11:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
alJazeera Jobs
Hello, I am still adding information to the Wikipage. alJazeera Jobs is a promient organisation in the Gulf and publish research articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.62.91 (talk)
Well, the article was really short and I had just softerblocked the article creator. However, if you wish to improve it, I'll be happy to userfy it for you. Just tell me where you prefer to have it and I'll move it for you to work on. SalvioLet's talk about it!11:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you need to allow people who are not familar with Wikipedia to give a reply before deleting articles and blocking accounts. I understand you have worked on many thousands of articles, I have worked on 2! The article for alJazeera Jobs is being worked on and forms part of a wider update of alJazeera.com, alJazeera Publishing pages which are way out of date and need updating (Whilst we are not affiliated with these organisations, we know the information which needs to be updated). We are getting the orginal author for the alJazeera.com page, Mr Harry Stanley to update these pages, and hope to have it done by tommorow. It is possible to return the alJazeera Jobs page or will we have to create afresh, or shall we add the updates with this ID or forward to you?Peter AndrewsLet's talk about it! 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UK)
My collegue Harry Stanley has created a new alJazeeraJobs page and linked it to alJazeera Publishing page, as well as updated alJazeera.com page.
Arbitration Committee clerkship
I'm pleased to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has promoted you to full-fledged ArbCom Clerk status, effective immediately. We thank you for all your assistance to the Committee.
Hi, you dropped an indef block template on my talkpage specifically in respect of impersonation (a third party has removed it). As I am not blocked I presume that the impersonator account has. I would comment that I had a few impersonator accounts a few days back, and wonder if you could point me to the one you issued the notice in respect of. Plus, of course, if it was you who blocked the impersonator, thank you. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon my own iniative I checked the logs in respect of your actions, found it was indeed you who blocked, and that the impersonator used the same modus operandi (redirecting their userpages to mine) as previously. FYI I am not the only admin so impersonated, but a recent SPI request report returned the note that the range is too active for a rangeblock to be considered. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you got it right. I was fooled by the redirect, and when I tried to remove the block notice, I saw that another user had already done so. I'm really sorry I made it look like I had blocked you. Thanks for the bit of info! SalvioLet's talk about it!21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg){kind=link}