Misplaced Pages

User talk:Salvio giuliano: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:48, 12 January 2014 editDarkness Shines (talk | contribs)31,762 edits Reverted 1 edit by 76.126.141.88 (talk): Rv, block evasion. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 15:00, 12 January 2014 edit undo76.126.141.88 (talk) Undid revision 590355227 by Darkness Shines (talk)no request for an open trial besides Salvio giuliano should be allowed to menage his own talkNext edit →
Line 71: Line 71:
</div> </div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0689 --> <!-- EdwardsBot 0689 -->
==Question==
Salvio giuliano, I am mbz1. You were the one who '''re'''-closed my ban discussion.
Surely you did not close it simply relying on the consensus of the involved bullies, and you could present evidences I that admin. You told me once you had no choice.Sure you did. Every person has a choice to be honest or to be dishonest.

I state:
*.
*.
*
*
*
*

I am not interested in editing any Misplaced Pages sites ever again, but I'd like to leave your project in peace.
In order to do it one of two things should happen:
#I am presented with valid evidences I harassed somebody. Then I would review them and apologize.
#If #1 cannot be achieved I am unblocked and allowed to leave in peace.

Simple enough, is it not? ] (]) 12:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:00, 12 January 2014

Salvio giuliano is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.
If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error (even a really stupid one) on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you.

If you are here to inquire as to why I deleted an article you created, please read this page and, if it does not satisfy your curiosity, please drop me a line, clicking here.

Admin policy. Fellow administrators, if you disagree with one of my admin actions, please feel free to revert it. I just kindly ask you to leave an informative edit summary as to why you think I made a mistake; alternatively, if you prefer, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Finally, seeing as I am awfully forgetful lately, if you have asked me something either here on in private and I have not replied within a reasonable time, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

“ → Let the darkness be gone and let there be light. ” — Today's Motto of the Day



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Fabio Rugge

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

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

Those chickens again

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

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

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

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

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

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

DS review

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

Arbitration

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Question

Salvio giuliano, I am mbz1. You were the one who re-closed my ban discussion. Surely you did not close it simply relying on the consensus of the involved bullies, and you could present evidences I [harassed that admin. You told me once you had no choice.Sure you did. Every person has a choice to be honest or to be dishonest.

I state:

I am not interested in editing any Misplaced Pages sites ever again, but I'd like to leave your project in peace. In order to do it one of two things should happen:

  1. I am presented with valid evidences I harassed somebody. Then I would review them and apologize.
  2. If #1 cannot be achieved I am unblocked and allowed to leave in peace.

Simple enough, is it not? 76.126.141.88 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Salvio giuliano: Difference between revisions Add topic