Salvio giuliano

Hey Salvio!

I just had to let you know a couple of things... I opened a DRN case about the Picts. Mutt has consistently attacked my intelligence there too. Also, Mutt insulted you twice on their own talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't catch it, as they hid their insults very well and in a convoluted way, and I'm sure you were too busy to actually read into what they said. They said this: "To advance an interpretation of ATWV that to fail is actively disruptive seems less-than careful and an "accusation of impropriety", which is hardly English, but I believe what they mean is "Your accusation against me is disruptive, not me!! Your accusation against me of saying I accused LightProof of vandalism is an improper accusation, instead of me agreeing with you I shouldn't have called LightProof a vandal."

I just want to edit the Picts page with my edits that are clearly non-OR without getting blocked again and without having to deal with this editor that had me blocked last time. Can you help?

Thanks, LightProof1995 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I walked away from the discussion on Mutt Lunker's talk page because I thought it had reached the point of diminishing returns. His conduct wasn't blockable and there was no point in trying to get the last word. Also, I have a fairly thick skin, which helps to recognise when it is time to walk away.
That said, you now have two choices: start an WP:RFC or accept that consensus is against you and walk away from the dispute. I do not know the first thing about Picts and haven't familiarised myself with the dispute, so I don't know if consensus is really against you, but if it is, you need to acknowledge that sometimes consensus can be against your position and accept it. Every editor has found himself in that position at some time or another and those who fail to recognise it end up sanctioned.
The alternative, as I said, is opening an RFC. Be advised, however, that continuing to make the contentious edits that other editors have an issue with is likely to lead to more blocks. —  Salvio ^giuliano 08:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Salvio! I was actually thinking of opening a discussion at the WP:OR noticeboard; is that still an option? Also I hope you get through whatever medical issues you're having all right! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and opened a case at WP:ORN. Thanks for your advice :) LightProof1995 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

...with regard to whatever physical ailments you might now be facing. If I might say, our prayers here, in this household, are with you.

Otherwise, when time and energy permit, I would ask that you revisit the question of what appears to be a never-ending (permanent) block applied to User:Elizium23. The individual is question is no relation of mine, personally or professionally. I just happened upon mention of the matter while leaving a note to an esteemed logging editor to look in on my recent edits (which, as a non-logging editor, I frequently do). And it is not that I argue in any sense in sympathy for or acceptance of that editor's earlier statements. It is simply that I believe a block of indeterminate length over a very proscribed set of statements made (even if egregious) — that is, the utter "silencing" and "disappearing" of an individual here — is contrary to the spirit of this place.

Doing so is in essence a firm statement of impossibility, that WP disciplinary action might be rehabilitative—and on principle, with such a statement I must disagree. Please review, and apply a time-limited penalty that you believe is appropriate; arguably, if an editor does not learn a lesson in 6 mos or a year, then follow-on penalties can be doubled, and doubled again if necessary. But "life imprisonment" (i.e., lifetime exclusion) for a limited set of utterances? I hope not. It is simply too easy, and arguably unjust.

Cheers, an educator, and longstanding editor who no longer logs. 2601:246:C700:F5:A9DE:5AC2:9872:31B9 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, an indefinite block is not a whole life tariff; in fact, since blocks are supposed to be preventative, they are usually lifted as soon as it is shown that they are no longer necessary.
In this case, I am certainly open to lifting the block, but Elizium needs to show that he understands what the problems were that led to the block and also has to give credible assurances such conduct will not reoccur. To do so, he needs to post an unblock request, so that other administrators can review it and, if they are convinced, they can unblock – I have been known to unblock people I had blocked myself, when I found the request convincing.
He can also try to convince the community that the block was wrong to begin with, but, again, he needs to post an unblock request, because, personally, I am confident that this block is appropriate.
You see, this isn't a case of an editor losing his cool and doing something stupid, for which a temporary block may be appropriate, those comments betray an approach that is fundamentally incompatible with collegial editing and which isn't likely to change unless the editor realises what the problem is and chooses to do something about it, that's why the block is indefinite, because first we need him to show us that he intends to change his approach. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sæward of Essex. Your closure rationale is rather terse, so could you shed some extra light on why you found the merge !votes (which were based on a very plain reading of the well-established WP:NBIO guideline's WP:BIOSPECIAL section) not persuasive? The way I read the discussion, the !keep votes were not addressing that part of the guideline at all. Ljleppan (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The short answer is that I felt that would have been a supervote.
The longer answer is that I did not simply close the discussion as keep, but rather as "keep without prejudice to merging", which, to me, means something different. I actually wondered whether I should close it as "no consensus between keep and merge", but thought that the former more accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion. I also asked myself whether I should relist the discussion, but thought that it would be unnecessary, considering that, rightly, there was no appetite for deletion and that merge discussions do not need an AfD. The thing is, the way I see it, both outcomes (keeping the article and merging it) could be argued for in a valid manner, because both outcomes relied on a valid reading of the relevant policy, since WP:BIOSPECIAL does not state that in cases of "failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria" we must "merge the article into a broader article providing context but rather that a merger is a possible outcome, [i]f neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article.
In this case, Sæward meets WP:ANYBIO and arguably WP:NPOL (or, at the very least, its spirit), so he is likely notable, although as you say, meeting those criteria does not necessarily guarantee an article. Meeting those criteria can be enough for inclusion provided a satisfying explanation is given why the subject qualifies for an article or, alternatively, can result in merging the material into a different article. As a closing administrator, it's not my place to decide whether the explanation that was provided is satisfying (or, in my opinion, I would be casting a supervote), rather I can only determine whether a reasonable editor may consider it satisfying, while its actual satisfyingness (which according to Wiktionary is word, apparently) is to be determined by those who take part in the discussion.
Which brings me back to my original point: both keeping the article and merging were acceptable results, both were in keeping with policy and, so, I could not discount any opinion or give some opinions less weight, which is why I closed it as a qualified keep, let's call it, because there was a consensus that the explanation given for keeping the article was satisfying and it was reasonable for commenters to consider it as such. Not to mention that one of the keep !voters explicitly said that he disagreed with the merge proposal, because he thought that the appropriate merge target was different, so even closing the discussion as merge would not have avoided a subsequent discussion to determine the target.
So, closing as keep without prejudice seemed the most appropriate result. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to respond in length, I suppose I read the keep without prejudice... as keep, but I guess you can have a merge discussion if you really want to (i.e. keep > merge) rather than as don't outright delete, figure out elsewhere whether to keep as-is or merge (i.e. keep ~ merge). Also, sorry for making you type all that out, I only noticed the notice at the top of the page now. Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ljleppan, don't worry. As an administrator I am expected to explain my decisions, so if I think I won't have the time or strength to explain myself, I will refrain from acting as an administrator. In this case, I thought my close was clear, but in hindsight I understand that it may not have been, so no need to apologise, especially in the light of the fact that the notice about my health has been there for a long time, since my health issues, unfortunately, are longstanding; then again, luckily they are not constant (even though they can be quite sudden), so it's there more as a way to say, if I don't respond, I am not ignoring you, rather than as a take it easy on me, because I am weak and frail.  —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, good to hear it's not as bad as it could be. In any case, thanks for your replies and I do hope you have a relaxing weekend ahead of you :) Ljleppan (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could I ask you to elaborate on why you protected The Fisherman (1931 film)? I'm not seeing any history of disruption in the edit history. Someone boldly redirected it, the author boldly reverted that, and then it went to AfD. The author didn't try to recreate it against consensus after that (and even if they had, presumably a block would be a more appropriate tool if the disruption is coming from only a single user?). I don't have any particular interest in this article, I was just skimming the ecp log to try to get a better understanding of the protection process. Colin M (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The only reason I had was the one I gave: to prevent recreation, since the inexperienced user who created it in the first place didn't participate in the AfD and already reverted it once. Since the consensus was that the short film was not notable, the article should not be recreated unless there has been a new discussion or, alternatively, an experienced user has found enough reliable sources establishing its notability. After all, there is consensus that ECP can be used to prevent recreation of an article (that discussion applies to creation-protection, but the principle is the same and, so, the spirit of that rules applies, in my opinion). —  Salvio ^giuliano 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:ECP says Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. I'm not seeing how any of that applies. It goes on to say Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred which kind of seems like what happened here. If you want to compare it to creation protection, WP:SALT says it's for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. This page was recreated only once, and that recreation was done in good faith and was not out-of-process. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you want, you can unprotect the page, I'm not going to. —  Salvio ^giuliano 21:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Accidentally reverted you on New York (state), my apologies. I need to get a confirmation box on those.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I've been known to do the same occasionally.. Best. —  Salvio ^giuliano 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

It was a tough one week battle to retain the page Daniel Jeddman. I noticed the focus was more on me on the deletion talk page for Daniel Jeddman rather than the du one time in question. I still don’t understand why the page was deleted without consideration or rescue.

Please Admin, if you would delete a page I’ll kindly ask you with all indulgence to rectify carefully the cause of the matter before execution.

Helping fish out notable articles and posts to update Daniel Jeddman would have been considerate. As far as I’m concerned, he’s notable. They’re why I took it upon myself to create this.

I admire your eloquence. Blackan007 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion focused, partially, on you, but also on the article.
Specifically, I found that the consensus was that the article was promotional and, much more importantly, that Daniel Jeddman did not qualify for inclusion, because it was perceived he was not notable enough, under Wikipedia's definition of notability. To simplify, a topic is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. A person may be important and notable in the real world, without being wiki-notable, which seems to be the case here.
You say that, before deleting a page, we should try to rectify the cause and that's what policy requires also; the idea is that deletion is not cleanup. However, when the main problem is that the subject of the article is not notable, it's impossible to correct that problem, in that correcting it would require the existence of reliable, third-party sources that give significant coverage to it and here it wasn't the case.
So, in short, I am sorry, but I am not going to undelete the article. If you wish, you can ask for review at deletion review or you can wait to see if more reliable, third-party sources emerge and, then, try to recreate the article; in that case, the article could be userfied, to allow you to work on it. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm a member of the Science Fiction project and was planning to weigh in on the U-Con deletion discussion after I got word it was nominated for deletion, but then my dad fell and broke his knee and, well, there went my week. And then you called it even though very few people participated in the discussion. I was surprised the discussion went the way it did. That article had been there for a long time with many editors and I just spent about an hour looking for independent references and found a whole bunch, so the assertions that there are none are just bizarre to me. It's an influential event where many nationally and internationally famous games have been play tested as part of their development.

The request for deletion review process instructions say to start by asking the admin who deleted the article to reconsider, so here I am. Obviously since the page is deleted I can't see what the state of the article was at the time of the deletion, but I would like to do so and have the chance to invite the rest of the Science Fiction Project members to improve the article.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Netmouse (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply