User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 21

Thank you and question

Will edit the page now.

Question: is it possible to edit my user name? I put AurelieHarp... and I would like to have: Aurélie Harp

How is that possible?

Many thanks, Aurelie Harp

You're most welcome! And, yes, it's possible to change your username, but you should file a request at WP:CHUS, because only Bureaucrats can perform renames; in my opinion, however, this would be more trouble than it would be worth... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 22:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Test page

As for this I doubt it would be notable according to site standards and at best would probably AFD or PROD it. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion an A7 is not necessarily out of the question; after all, the only claim of importance present in the article is that this kid is the youngest businessman — which is sort of an overstatement, by the way — in Shrewsbury, which probably translates as this is a kid who helps his school buddies to repair their bikes.

All the cases listed in my CSD subpages are real and I remember that the original article was speedied per A7 an nobody complained.

If the candidate responds that he would PROD the article, explaining why, however, I'd be just as satisfied. The way I interpret my questions, there is no "right" answer; it all depends on how well the candidate explains his reasoning, especially when it comes to dubious cases such as this one. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least we can agree on doubt in notability. Though I sometimes use AFD if the deletion is disputed. If the article stays deleted then there is no further action is needed. This version seems notable. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! That one was a bad A7 nomination, in my opinion. I'm not really sure that athlete was notable enough, but certainly that article should, at worst, have been PRODded, because it asserted why this guy's important.

And I agree that, if one can reasonably anticipate that a nomination will be controversial, then A7 is not the way to go. After all, speedy deletion is just an exception to the rule that only the community can decide that a page will be deleted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ExtendBlock

Could you review and maybe extend User:Zobayerpersonal's block for

  1. Making inappropriate pages
  2. Removing Speedy deletion tags.
~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19
04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've already increased the original block (one week) to a month due to block evasion; I'd be hesitant to increase it further, if they do not breach any more Wikirules; let's call it a WP:ROPE case (and rest assured that I'm actively wathing them). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Addison44

How would you call those edit warring and not vandalism? Clear sock puppet of User:Brucejenner CTJF83 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, I see it more as pov-pushing than as vandalism. I'm now looking into the sockpuppetry issue, to see if this is him (in that case, I'd indef). Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, saw Gogo Dodo took care of it, thanks, CTJF83 00:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of my account: User: Anshul4ever.hbti

Dear Salvio,

I created a page yesterday but got to know that it has been referred to the speedy deletion citing the reason - because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article.

I am an employee of a company called Kasper Consulting (http://www.kasperconsulting.com/) in India. I was trying to create a wiki page for my company (a two year old IT consulting firm) and hence created a duplication page for the same. I did not advertise the material on the Wikipedia as it was in perfect coherence with company's official site. In addition to that I thought of having it as a sample on my personal account before moving data from my wiki page to the account by company's name - Kasper Consulting.

I did not know if it was the violation of rules. Please clarify the doubts in this regard. If it is violation of rules than what should be done to have my company's page on Wikipedia. Please suggest the way forward.

If this is the violation of the rules and my material cant be there on site then please release my data on a temporary basis so that I can save the same as I had not saved it earlier.

Looking forward to a positive and prompt reply from your side.

Please see WP:CORP for more information.  Frank  |  talk  11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment by Frank and would like to point you to Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. If you work for the company you wrote about, it means you have a conflict of interest, which means that you should be particularly mindful, when you write about it, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, meaning that it can only have articles written using a neutral tone on notable subjects. If you wish, however, I can provide you a copy of the deleted article by mail.

Lastly, please do not create an account named Kasper Consulting, as accounts giving the impression to be editing on behalf of organisations or groups are blocked per WP:ORGNAME: your username should only represent you as an individual. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show Some Respect

Hello Salvio,

Along with countless others in the world, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know every detail about the page creation process.

I created a page for a non-profit organization and asked for a critique. Instead of finding a constructive message after the weekend, I return to find my page deleted sans critique!

Being an admin, I would think you'd take the time to provide constructive criticism.

Now I've read the reasons for immediate deletion, and I understand why you deleted my page.

I only ask that in the future you respectfully uphold your position as administrator by providing clear reasoning for your actions and providing suggestions/constructive criticism

Show some respect!

You received feedback at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_May_26, less than 8 hours after you asked for it (see this link). Please see WP:CORP, WP:FIRST, WP:INCUBATE, and WP:AFC for more information and assistance in determining if the organization is sufficiently notable to be included, and for processes to follow to create an article if it is deemed notable.  Frank  |  talk  15:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Black Oean Group

Salvio, why did you erase the Black Ocean Group entry?

I think that your motives were wrong. I know Black Ocean and it is a company that is redefining the online space. Perhaps you are not aware of this market, and what is happening, but this should not have been deleted

I deleted the page per speedy deletion criterion G11, as a page that was entirely promotional in nature; it had nothing to do with Black Ocean Group as a company, I was not questioning its notability or even its existence.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which has article on notable subjects written using a neutral tone; it's not supposed to be a means to advertise.

However, if you wish to improve the article, I can userfy it, so that you'll be able to work on it at your own pace, if you're willing to create an account... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and although I agree in part I do not entirely agree with this, nevertheless I will look to revise the entry. Thank you for your reply. Regards

Contesting Reason for Speedy Deletion of Tech Plus Forum

Dear Salvio Giuliano,

I am writing to you with regard to the second deletion of Tech Plus Forum claiming wiki policy "G11: Unamibiguous advertising or promotion. Since this was my first wiki entry I took the first delete as a lesson to be careful to write neutrally and without promotion. Thus, I benchmarked a few other pages with forum entries, such as TED, Mobile World Congress, Seoul Digital Forum and Meet the Future, Science & Technology Summit 2010. Can you please tell me how I am differing from the aforementioned entries in my tone, structure or content that is causing you to classify my entry as advertising? As I wrote in the talk section of the page, when you flagged for speedy delete the second time, this is a non-profit forum hosted by a branch of the Korean government to spread knowledge of the R&D conducted in any given year which will be applied to future policy and solution development. Thus, I'm not trying to promote the event, but rather disseminate information about an event that is having an impact on world industrial technology development. Please advise where I am going wrong. Stevelaj (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

While I deleted the first version of your article, I only nominated the second one for speedy deletion, because I still thought it was overly promotional in nature and it was in fact deleted by another administrator.

In my opinion, your page is still excessively promotional. Statements such as since its inception in 2009, tech+ has been acclaimed in Korea as a conceptually unique event that provides a public platform for the world’s intellectual community to promote and develop progressive theories and solutions to tackle cutting edge issues related to industrial technology, for instance, are, in my opinion, inappropriate, as they run afoul of WP:NPOV.

My suggestion would have been to create a userspace draft and, then ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK, but I see that you've recreated the article... I'm not going to either nominate the page for deletion or actually delete it, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Salvio, thank you very much for the response and explanation. I also heard similar comments from the second admin to delete the page. Actually, I agree with you about that particular sentence. I really appreciate you and other admins, like RHaworth, taking the time to explain and advise. I will try to revise the language in the sentence you mentioned and throughout the article as a whole. Thank you for not nominating for speedy delete again. Stevelaj (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Speedy deletion declined: Substitution of attorney

Hi Salvio giuliano. I don't know what the procedure is for these things, so cross posting in addition to replying on my own talk page, since it seems like your post there was entirely automated... This is what I said: Very well. Personally, I disagree. I don't think a page on some legal matter that doesn't even identify which territories it applies to has enough context. But I guess "context" is subjective here. Ah, the wonderful inadequacies of the English language. Thank you for responding. ZUKX (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when it comes to speedy deletion, no context means a slightly different thing: it means that one canno understand what an article is about (the most common example is "he is a funny man, he makes people laugh"); in this case, in my opinion, there is enough context to understand what that document is, although the article is quite lacking (and I agree on this). In this case, a WP:PROD would be more appropriate, in my opinion; or, alternatively, you can send the article to WP:AFD, if you prefer.

Here you can find a better explanation of what A1 is for (and a very useful document if you like doing new page patrolling!). Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Speedy deletion declined: Reza Mohammady

I reasoned extensively regarding why Reza Mohammady should be deleted, speedily. The criteria, despise your statement, very well applied. In particular G2 and G3 did. G1 applied because the article claimed a product produced in the IRI "in affiliation with" the US DoD. That indeed is patent nonsense. Please re-apply the speedy deletion tags and also consider acting upon them. Akarana (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion G1 is only meant for pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history; an example might be "jjhghlk mbcmnbftrsk". In this case, the article is clearly readable and makes sense; therefore, to speedy it per G1 would have been inappropriate. Criterion G2 is only meant for test pages; the article is rather clearly not a test page. Criterion G3 is only for blatant hoaxes; in my opinion, if the article is a hoax, it's not blatant enough and should, therefore, at least require a WP:PROD or an WP:AFD. And it's not blatantly promotional either, which is required for a speedy deletion under criterion G11. Furthermore, the fact that Reza Mohammady received 1st rank of Khwarizmi International Award would make it impossible for me to delete the article per criterion A7.

So, I cannot speedily delete the article at the moment. If you want to have the page deleted, you can use a WP:PROD or send it to WP:AFD. If you need help with the latter, I'd be happy to oblige. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe G3 applies in that the person (Reza Mohammady, under the username SX19216811) has created not only a page about his self but also a number of other pages linking to/from it about the non-existent products of his alleged, but unregistered, commercial entity (Xerotex Enterprises?). That's a somewhat subtle technique, applicable on Wikipedia, of reinforcing a concept by circularly affirming it through a number of interlinked articles. Mr. Mohammady, according to his own CV on the website linked to on his article, has flunked even a poorly ranked university in his native country. Regarding the Khwarizmi so-called Awards, I believe that the Awards' page itself should be deleted since their significance outside of the Iranian government is absolute nil. They simply are not notable in any way; let alone that they give notability to whoever receives them. Anyhow, I will not add the SD tags again and relinquish the responsibility to your judgment. I believe I have supplied enough information for you (an administrator) to act upon. Thanks for the effort. Akarana (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Them Clones

Hi Salvio. I've restored the article, as I think it has some potential, see [1]. Please, let me know if you disagree or if you plan to nominate the article at AfD. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! The article actually seems to have some potential, so I'm not going to try and get it zapped. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Greetings to Italy. Take care :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key West Bed and Breakfast

Key West Bed and Breakfast® is a trademarked name owned by the Key West Bed and Breakfast which has been in business since 1985 We ask that you remove the name from any listing that is not part of our corporation. We also request that you stop using it to advertise your own site. Jody Carlson (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand correctly: you're saying that Wikipedia is using Key West Bed and Breakfast to advertise itself?

Furthermore, could you point me to where your name is listed? Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

retire

I am now reconsidering editing Wikipedia since those threats. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this must have been upsetting and stressful; but, in my opinion, it's not something worth retiring over. Sleep over it, take a short Wikibreak, if you feel like it, and, in a very short time, you'll feel Wikipedia's call again and you won't be able to resist it.

Look, that guy wasn't trying to make you feel bad; he felt attacked by Wikipedia, something impersonal, without a face. And the only thing he could think of was blanking the most offensive content — without knowing about edit summaries and, probably, without knowing about OTRS, either — and, when he saw that those statement were back in the article, he resorted to the only other thing he could think of: a legal threat.

Now, the page has been stubbed and all should be well. You don't have to retire. Just take your time to relax. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement notice

A user that you might know, Crazymonkey1123, has opened a discussion on his talk page regarding his possibility of retiring from Wikipedia. You are welcome to go and participate in the discussion. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Barcolo

Drat. I just found out he invented the Barcalounger. viz http://wnyheritagepress.org/photos_week_2008/barcolo/barcalo.htm Dlohcierekim 13:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, I'm not really sure what to do here; the article only contained this guy's name, so there's very little to restore... I concur that the page creator might have been bitten away by the hasty tagging and stopped editing the article as a consequence... I'll defer to your judgement, if you want to userfy the page or restore it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll drop him a link to the source. My first article got deleted as a blank, placeholder page too. He did have time to fix it though, something I was not afforded. Oh, well. He'll need the sourcing anyway. Dlohcierekim 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's probably the best course of action! Thanks and cheers. See you around! Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are so welcome. I could restore the thing and add a lead. But I've read that doing so is considered edit warring. Or if you would do the honors, I'll add a lead and a source. Dlohcierekim

I wouldn't have considered it edit warring, , however the article is now live again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I also. I figure if another admin reverses me it just means they see it a different way or have other information, so I don't worry much. I'm gonna drop some content on before it gets tagged again. Dlohcierekim 14:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hi Salvio,

Thank you for your message. I have not made any edits and I have not named any editors, I have merely placed a comment on the talk page.

I have been looking at this page from time to time and I am appalled by it. You only have to read all the talk pages to see that what I say is true. I do not believe that many of the editors are acting in good faith. They obstruct and block everyone who disagrees with them for no good reason. They have blocked and driven many good editors away.

I have trained as a journalist. My work often involves studying sources, taking a judgement and writing accurately and sensitively. It is not that hard to do but it is conspicuously absent from the minds of many who are on this page.

It is clear that Mr Jimbo Wales has concerns but he is a busy man and obviously does not have the time to supervise the page himself. The fact that he is interested has made no difference to the obstruction and bickering that goes on.

I have not studied your comments (if you have made any) so I am not directing anything at you.

If I am blocked for speaking the truth, that says more about Wikipedia than it says about me. I would not dare to try and edit the page while the present group of editors are in charge. I know I would be wasting my time.

Best wishes

Nigel Scott NigelPScott (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have long abandoned the article and, though it is still on my watchlist, I no longer comment on its talk page; from time to time, I read it, however, and I just saw your message, where you refer to the editors you disagree with as "wankers"; you haven't named any of them by name, it's true, but it's not difficult to understand who you were referring to.

I'm not going to block you, because I consider myself involved and, even if you were to be blocked, it would not be for speaking the truth, but only for speaking it in a highly inappropriate way. The article is controversial, because the topic is controversial, so interaction on the talk page should be calm and polite; inflammatory statements such as the one I have warned you about only poison the atmosphere, making it that much harder to interact constructively and to improve the article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carachi

Hi! I found out that you're an active administrator when I looked at the BlockList and saw that you've recently blocked an user. I just want to say that it's on guy that call himself for "Carachi" that are currently vandalising the page about the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He claims that the Indian Maoist terrorist group Naxalite was involved in the war. First he claimed that they were with the Russians, but now, after I told him that the Naxalite's greatest inspiration, China, supported the Islamist "Mujahideen" insurgency, he suddenly wrote that the Naxalite movement supported the Mujahideen. That the Naxalite was involved in this civil conflict (in any way) at ANY on the sides, is completely bullshit. And he have been reverted AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN by different users. He's a CLEAR candal. He've also moved a lot of pages, wich have been moved back again, all of them. He've got a lot of warnings on his user talk page, but he removes ALL of them. Not that this user's vandalism is so very serious, it becomes a VERY serious problem because he do it AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN - the same thing, mostly on the same page (Soviet war in Afghanistan). Because of that, I want that you shall block this user. PLEASE! So we may be free from Carachi's destruction. A young communist (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011