This is an archive of past discussions with User:Salvio giuliano. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
No worries, it wouldn't have been the first (or, erm, the fifteenth) time I closed a deletion request without deleting the page... Salvio23:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Revdel request
Hello to you Salvio. I don't suppose you could work some of your magic on this edit[1] by any chance (and those similar)? It's not the revision that needs blanking but the summary. It basically implies that I am a sexuality that I am not, and is by an LTA. I'd be grateful. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
That's not particularly useful, in this case, since the account has already been blocked. Sometimes it can be useful to add new socks to an investigation for documentation purposes, when doing so helps future investigations, because it makes it easier to spot similarities between old and new socks, but not in this case, I'd say. Anyway, I ran a quick check and blocked the only un(b)locked sock: Çira TV yekemîn kanala televîzyonê ya êzîdiyan e. (talk·contribs). Best. Salvio11:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't feel it's necessary just yet... Users can remove block notices and he's not currently spamming any longer, so we can give a bit more rope. Cheers. Salvio10:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you please tell me how I can edit my article? I'm having difficulty finding it as you seem to have deleted it.
@RL Asaf: yes, I have deleted your article for being self-promotional, in violation of WP:PROMO. I also left a template on your talk page, giving you information about Wikipedia's WP:COI policy, explaining to you that creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged. So, you cannot edit your article, because, as you said, it was deleted. I am also not going to undelete it, because the page violated our policies. Salvio09:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@RL Asaf: I have temporarily undeleted the page. Click here and copy whatever you need. After you are done, let me know and I will delete the page again. Salvio11:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Salvio, thank you for acting quickly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhitFruit. I'm not too familiar with the process, but it seems there's been another block evasion/sockpuppet: Teader3, doing the exact same thing again and again. Do I need to start a new inquiry or can you reopen the last investigation? Or can you block them straight away? Thanks, and happy editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK08:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Salvio giulano, I forgot to ask, if I have my suspicions the sockpuppeteer has returned, can I message you directly as well? So far, they've been quite tenacious. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK20:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Reporting socks to SPI helps because it creates a paper trail, which means that administrators, clerks and checkusers can more easily spot similarities, in addition to providing a handy list of previous socks against which new ones can be checked (since CU data go stale after 90 days, it's useful to keep track of the various socks). It also helps when I'm not around More seriously, if you wish you can report new socks here, but SPI has its advantages too. Salvio20:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
So that you do not risk wasting your time working on an article that'll get deleted again, I'd like to clarify a few things with you before answering your question. First of all, do you have reliable, third-party sources that discuss SF Intra-City in depth? To qualify for an article on Wikipedia, a company, just like anything else, must be notable, which means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable sources. If SF Intra-City is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, then it will have no article written about it. In addition to that, do you a conflict of interest in relation to it? If you do, please familiarise yourself with WP:COI an remember that, under Wikipedia's terms of use, you must disclose when you are getting paid for your edits. Salvio09:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I know you have said that working on this article would be a waste of time since there could be a chance that it would be deleted. However, I still want to give it a try. I have already revised the article into a neutral tone with enough reliable, third-party sources about the topic. All content there were written based on facts and nothing shady or something. As for your question regarding the WP:COI, no, there is no money involved. I just see an opportunity to write a page and if this gets a success, I can add it in my portfolio one day. So there's is no COI here, but just me trying to test my basic skills as a Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Limnewiy (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Both the username and the content were problematic. The username violated the username policy and the content was promotional in nature and thus violate WP:PROMO. Furthermore, as a general rule, Wikipedia strongly discourages editors with conflicts of interest from editing. Basically, I suggest you read WP:COI, to see what the expectations are. Salvio16:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi... reaching out because I'm unfamiliar with reporting edit warring and you processed my first report of it two weeks ago. The same editor has made the same edit, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus since their ban expired... is the proper procedure to make another full WP:ANEW report or is this better dealt with elsewhere? If so, could you point me in the right direction? Thank you in advance... wasn't really sure where to ask. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
For the moment, a block is unwarranted, in my opinion. If he had been back reverting as soon as the previous block ended it would have been different, but he hasn't. Rather he has waited a couple of days and so I feel more comfortable just issuing a warning. Should he continue reverting, you can report him either to me or to WP:ANEW. Cheers. Salvio13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
First of all, welcome back. Both calls were correct, the COI tag and the speedy deletion nomination. For the future, if you want, you can install WP:TWINKLE, to make editing easier. Without it, I'd be lost, I'd waste so much time looking for the right template... Cheers. Salvio20:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Whoa, I can see why you need a second opinion. Comparing the confirmed accounts only, there is zero article intersection, although the only two accounts with over 100 edits are Rlovm and Espyul. And it is interesting that both of those accounts were created in January 2022. The only one who appears to be disruptive is Espyul...although never blocked, they have a ton of warnings on their Talk page, so it could be WP:GHBH for those two, although I still would expect some article overlap. I suppose it depends on how convincing the technical evidence is, e.g., whether the UA(s) are distintictive or common. Based on what I see behaviorally, though, I don't think I'd block any of them. As for P3DRO and SLBEditor37, based on your check, I don't think they're socks of each other. Although my knowledge of sports is about as low as it gets, I realized immediately that SLBEditor37, like SLBedit, both edit articles with the initials SLB, so that might all there is to that. I hope this helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion. I'm still mulling it over. In the end, I might choose to play dumb and simply keep an eye on them, to see if the situation becomes clearer... Salviogiuliano16:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
My report on AN3
Is there anything I could/should have done differently with my report on the edit warring noticeboard? I'm wondering a) if I could've just reported the user to AIV instead and b) if I could've taken a different approach when engaging with the user. Thanks, --SamX16:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The best venue would probably have been WP:ANI, but the case was obvious enough that WP:AIV would have been suitable as well. Technically it was also edit warring, so WP:ANEW could fit the bill too, but since the problem was more "generalised" than simple edit warring, another venue might have been better; again, the problem was extremely obvious, so no harm no foul. In the end, the user was not here to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to self-promote and so I expect he would have been indeffed regardless of where you reported him. As for your approach, there was very little you could have done differently: you reverted his edits and warned him, but he didn't listen. At most, you could have dropped a {{uw-coi}} on his talk page, or maybe even a "handwritten" warning rather than a templated message, if you were feeling particularly generous, but I doubt the end result would have been different in any case. Salviogiuliano16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! I kind of figured as much, but I'm still glad to have gotten your second opinion. --SamX22:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Salvio, I see that you've deleted my recent wiki page as well as my draft within the sandbox. Could I perhaps be given the opportunity to retrieve the draft within the sandbox such that I can edit the content? Thanks so much, Sir! JiaHaoTeo (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
A couple of questions first. Are you receiving any sort of compensation for your edits? If so, you must disclose it, per our terms of use (see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure). Note that if you are an employee of one of the companies Mr Guo chairs, then you qualify as a paid contributor. Regardless of whether you are being paid for your contributions, do you a conflict of interest? COI editing is strongly discouraged. Finally, not everyone qualifies for a Wikipedia article. To qualify for inclusion, a person needs to be notable, which, basically, means that the person must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). At a glance, Mr Guo does not appear notable. Is he? And, if he is, can you prove that he is? It's true that your article was deleted because it was promotional in tone, which could be fixed by rewriting the article, but there is no point in doing that if Mr Guo is not notable, because then his article would be deleted for lack of notability. Salviogiuliano13:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Salvio, I'm not receiving any form of compensation nor am I an employee of any of Mr. Guo's companies. Hence there is no conflict of interest involved. Personally, I feel that Mr. Guo is a notable person as he is currently a chairman of Digital China Holdings Limited, which is listed on the Kong Kong Stock Exchange, and I believe that not many people can achieve the same level of status as him.
@Salvio giuliano Hi Salvo, here's a page of Mr. Guo Wei who is the current chairman/president of Digital China Group. [2] In addition, he held multiple board memberships as the China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, Beijing Informatization Association, etc. He is a prominent figure in China and I wanted to showcase his achievement in China to the public as well. Hope this helps! JiaHaoTeo (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"I wanted to showcase his achievement in China to the public as well" that's actually kind of the problem. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to showcase a person's achievements, they are supposed to be neutral and factual and need to focus only on what independent reliable sources tell us about a subject. Articles are not supposed to be promotional or serve as résumés. Separately, that is only one source and is insufficient to prove notability. I realise that "notability" may be a bit of a misnomer, in that a person can be notable in the real world – such as Mr Guo – but not notable in wiki-jargon, but to be wikinotable, as I said, you need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (not only one) that are indepedent of the subject.Salviogiuliano08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I am afraid you misunderstand the role and powers of the moderator. He cannot authorise you to make edits and having his "blessing" does not mean that other editors cannot revert you. The moderator is not going to make a decision on the subject matter, but rather is there to help you all achieve consensus. That's his only role. He told you, reasonably, that since nobody had objected, you could introduce your version and he may have told you that you have a rough consensus for it, but still that does not justify edit warring. There are only few exceptions to edit warring (WP:3RRNO) and neither being right nor upholding consensus are among them. Now, LucrativeOffer should not have kept reverting either, but should have participated in the moderated discussion and, for that, he was partially blocked as well, even though he only reverted three times, so, unlike you, he did not breach WP:3RR, although he breached WP:EW. Incidentally, I have taken all these factors into consideration, when I imposed my block on both of you and I explicitly chose a partial block over a "full" one, so that you can still edit Wikipedia, with the exception of the contentious article. Salviogiuliano18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
With due respect, I don't think this is a sound judgement on your part. I have never violated 3RR and stopped reverting when I was on my third revert while AMomen88 kept reverting until his version was in place. Even if you think I have breached WP:EW, how do I deserve the same duration of block as AMomen88 who has already violated 3RR three times? The dispute resolution was on hold because of this edit warring and most of the participants became distracted. The moderator mistakenly called it a rough consensus because nobody responded. He has restarted the moderated discussion and the Dispute Resolution is still in progress. LucrativeOffer (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As WP:3RR clearly states "even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". That you stopped just short of 3RR does not mean you were not edit warring. In fact, you were both edit warring. Concerning the duration of the block, this is your third block for edit warring, same as AMomen88. His blocks may be more recent than yours, but in this case he was clearly trying to discuss the issue at the moderated discussion. He thought he had consensus on his side and, while he should not have reverted you multiple times after it was clear you objected to his proposal, you could very well have participated in the moderated discussion, without reverting his edit. There was nothing there that needed to be immediately reverted and there is even a humorous essay about the possibility of tolerating the WP:WRONGVERSION of the article while DR is in progress (that essay focuses on full protection, but the idea is the same). Salviogiuliano08:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
