User talk:Salvio giuliano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.

Today's Motto of the Day

Get well soon

A small cup of coffee.JPG I was passing by and read that you have some health issues currently. Get well soon. ShriramTalk 17:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind thought, Shriram. It's appreciated! smile Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Bauribandhu Mohapatra & Gujarat National Law University Community Service Award

I do not see a consensus here, and I request that this be relisted.  I will go into detail if you want.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do see a very clear rough consensus.

During the deletion discussion, two people argued in favour of keeping the article; the former, Uncletomwood, does not give any reasons to keep the article and actually goes as far as saying that he [a]grees with the nominator; you are the other and you say [t]here is no Wikipedia notability guideline that awards as a topic are restricted to those primarily given to wp:notable recipients, which is correct but immaterial; it may be considered a rebuttal of the nominator argument that one or two of the individuals given the prize are likely to be notable, but not most of them, but that assertion was not the primary reason he nominated the article for deletion. It was merely added ad abundantiam. You then go on to add and as to whether or not the recipients would be listed in the article, this is a matter of WP:DUE wp:prominence, not WP:N wp:notability, which is basically a strawman. All others who commented, on the other hand, made policy-based arguments, discussing the fact that the award in question had not received significant coverage in reliable sources and, therefore, was not notable in its own right. Therefore, since the only policy-based !votes were in favour of deletion and consensus is not merely vote-counting, there was a consensus to delete.

For these reasons, I'm not going to relist the AfD. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Non-notable" is not equal to a policy-based "deletable".  The nominator is known for advocating the use of AfD for non-deletion arguments, so the fact that he does not recommend delete in the context of a potential merge target may have been significant.  Why did you not ask him why he didn't discuss the WP:ATD in the nomination?  The next delete !vote is from an experienced editor, yet by saying "per nom", gives the appearance of appealing to the good-ole-boys network.  After doing some Google searches, I find that this article appears to be a copyvio of [1].  wp:Notability is not defined by sources in an article, and whether or not this is a copyvio, doesn't change the fact that this is evidence that no participants researched the topic's wp:notability.  I withdraw my request to have the AfD reopened.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Austrian economics case

You skipped voting on a couple of principles. If you have reservations or are still thinking about these principles, I understand, but if you just skipped them inadvertently you might want to take another look. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Actually, I am still thinking about those principles because I find them to be a little bit too academic. I'm afraid admins who rarely get involved in creating content (and I am one of them) may forget what it is like to be in a long, heated dispute, maybe with a clueless newbie or with a civil POV-pusher... These people sometimes drain an editor's patience and when a person who's trying to protect Wikipedia from their activities occasionally loses his cool, then context should be taken into consideration (and, depending on the circumstances, the other people's actions might even excuse his). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahem ;) - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Howdy Sit, fancy meeting you here... ;-) How are things? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Frustrating! I seem to be surrounded by clueless newbies and pov-pushers, civil or otherwise. If anything, it is getting worse because many of the few who once would assist me are MIA - Qwyrxian won't be back, Boing! and RegentsPark are basically on lengthy breaks, SpacemanSpiff has gone walkabout, etc. It's getting lonely and even harder than it used to be. And for some crazy reason I still keep getting drawn to the mess that is the AE arbcom case, where civil POV-pushers abound. I've got a semi-retired up there but have been churning through stuff these last few days, mainly because I can't leave my house at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
And now The Times of India have contacted me about a story they want to run re: Wikipedia & the Narendra Modi article. I've responded in general terms and asked them to provide more specific questions. Should I be running my replies through any particular channel here? I rather think that I can say whatever I want to say, although that may not be pretty. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I hear you, Sitush and I understand you're starting to feel more and more lonely. In general, I try not to get too involved in disputes because you never know what will end up before ArbCom, but if you need help do feel free to drop a message on my talk page: your contribution to the protection of Wikipedia is both important and appreciated and if I can help, I'll be glad to.

As for the interview, you don't have to run your replies through anybody. With very few exceptions (outing and harassment, mainly), what's done off-wiki remains off-wiki. To my knowledge, mere comments are not usually sanctioned, no matter how scathing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are best staying out of the disputes. It seems inevitable that if I stay around then I'll be hauled in front of ArbCom at some point and that would put you in an awkward situation, as you say. As far as ToI is concerned, I've said nothing that I would consider scathing, although I guess I do have a fairly thick skin as a rule & so my definitioin might be different. I'm saving the scathing stuff for a follow-up interview that they are interested in doing for a piece about me. You have be warned ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredy Sosa

You closed this as delete. The argument was that the Honduran National League isn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. But it is still listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, and there has been no discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues to remove it. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's still listed because you reverted its removal. Considering that the consensus at the AfD was very clear, I'll not restore the articles until and unless you have consensus on the talk page that the Honduran National League is a fully professional league. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License