User talk:Salvio giuliano

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 ]

Okay, I did. I'm disappointed we weren't able to reach consensus on the correct application of policy here though. Colin M (talk) 18:16, 22 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 ]

When the article was deleted, it was almost entirely unreferenced. It only had one source, this one . As such I am not simply going to undelete it; however, I can userfy the article o draftify it, if you prefer, so that you (and the other members of the Science Fiction Wikiproject) can work on it. — Salvio ^giuliano 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Would either of those options preserve the History of edits others did? I would also like to see when the article was established, and who worked on the article previously, and notify them of the opportunity to preserve/restore it through improvement. Sometimes when I have had articles that include my own work nominated for deletion, I have been notified, while other times I have not. I don't know what was the case here. I'd also like to see what edits were made shortly before the nomination for deletion.

One article I had nominated for deletion had been mangled between when I created it and when it was nominated for deletion, so that the version nominated for deletion was clearly inferior. It's possible this article, similarly, had more references or stronger content in a previous version.

I've seen Wikipedia editors delete references if links are dead, even when the references were for a publication that once/also appeared in print as a paper publication. Editors in the deletion discussion I mentioned above clearly didn't believe a substantial printed article that had been cited even existed, because it was no longer available online for them to confirm; the magazine had gone out of business and was no longer maintaining the website. The Wayback machine confirmed the website used to exist, but didn't have the article in question archived. To delete or ignore a reference because it is not accessible online for free goes against WP:SOURCEACCESS but there is no requirement that editors engaged in a deletion discussion actually be familiar with policy, is there?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure draftifying an article preserves its history, so if you would do that, I'd be much obliged. Thanks for listening. Netmouse (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Netmouse, I have draftified the article; you can now find it at Draft:U-Con. Both userfying and draftifying preserve the history of the article, which is required for attribution, so you can notify those who have already worked on the article. I hope that with the new sources you find you can show notability. Best. — Salvio ^giuliano 08:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Great, thanks! Netmouse (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

aha, see, for instance, back in 2009 it had these three references:

1. Carmen Tugulan, Michigan Union Attracts Gamers The Michigan Journal, November 8, 2005
2. Gamers skip football, head to Union convention instead, The Michigan Daily, November 23, 1998
3. Jenni Yachnin, Meeting builds gamers' abilities, The Michigan Daily, October 28, 1996

... even though they had suffered from linkrot, they were all still valid print publication references. But you can't see which content the citations support. Huh. I wonder if it would make sense to start using Wikimedia space to archive reference documents like this. I mean, you have the info storage bloat argument vs the info rot loss problem. It's tricky. But if other editors and admins are going to treat citations as non-existent because they aren't instantaneously available, that's an issue too.

And then, of course, there's the fact that someone deleted the entire Guest of Honor History, which had all the gaming industry connections in it and wikilinks that demonstrated those guests were notable (meaning they have their own articles), shortly before the convention article was nominated for deletion. That list was built over years by multiple editors per the article revision history. It's going to take some work to reconstruct this. Hmm.

Hey, question for you. From my perspective, the 19:48, 10 March 2023 edit by‎ Galobtter just looks like vandalism. Is there a way to complain about that behavior, above and beyond posting on their talk page?

A lot of work went into the article, and then they deleted that guest of honor list, which is a list that's very typical for convention articles, and not usually with individual citations for each line, though every year publications are produced that documented at the time who were the guests at any particular con (see also, List of Worldcon Guests of Honor. That guest list captures a lot about a convention's focus and history and significance, and before it was deleted the list in this article had a lot of wikilinks in it of value. And it looks like Galobtter just deleted it, with an illogical call to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as their excuse. Illogical in that the Guest of Honor list for a convention is not an indiscriminate list of random info - it is very relevant contextual history and often one of the main reasons people would pull up a convention article or website -- in order to be reminded who were the guests, so they can seek out the work they admired during a past event, or learn more about people who were at events they were unable to attend, and about their works.

As an historian, I lament every time a convention changes management and the new people in charge don't bother to maintain an historical record like that. That Wikipedia has been a place for such info has been a boon to history and the community alike. I'm really concerned that this editor might repeat this sort of action on other articles. I'm also concerned that Red-tailed hawk's copyvio revdel came just hours later -- and what is with the " 11:42, 10 March 2023‎ Intrepidgm" edit that is just gray and struck out? What action did that, and what user did that action? How can you tell? It looks like Intrepidgm was filling out the Guest list from right before the pandemic, a totally valid thing to have done, plus some other edits according to their revision comment. In their user:talk page I see they asked for help when their content was wiped, but clearly didn't get it from someone who understands that copying Guest names off a website to construct a guest list is totally standard practice. Or maybe because their revision was no longer available, so it was hard for anyone to give informed advice as to what was wrong with it.

It takes copying a whole phrase or sentence to have a copyright violation. Maybe Intrepidgm did that? I can't tell. Copyvio report says 53% of the edit (88 words) came from https://www.ucon-gaming.org/guest-of-honor. That's not too many words to be more or less just names and affiliations. But I can't assess the supposed violation because the revision is gray and struck out instead of available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1143907861 says it has been removed from public archives. What's up with that? I thought the whole point of having a public history of revisions was, er, maintaining a public history of revisions. And thus the appearance, at least, of the stance that if someone puts time and energy into editing an article, their work cannot be arbitrarily erased into oblivion. Netmouse (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I noticed you bowed out of the discussion. After making a couple of comments about what constitutes vandalism in terms of edit-warring, I too dropped out and went on to easier things: CSD tends to be relaxing. I have to say sometimes I'm embarrassed to be an administrator. Looks like most folk are going to excuse DS's violations of policy because they think CC deserves whatever they got and more. Am I really that out of it? Take care and I hope you are safely tucked away for the night (I think, but am not sure, that you're British).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I am Italian actually. Mom was English, but Italy is where I grew up; anyway, yesterday I gracefully bowed out of the discussion, did something else for bit and then went to bed. I have found that the secret to keeping Wikipedia a fun hobby is knowing when to walk away from a discussion. That said, I am surprised as well that so many people find absolutely no fault with DS's conduct and am not entirely happy with the precedent being set here, and wonder whether I am indeed so out of touch with the prevailing sentiment of the community. Not the first time this has happened, but this time it was quite unexpected. — Salvio ^giuliano 08:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I've found that happen several times before this. I'm not sure I'm as good as you are at letting go. I finally unsubscribed to the thread so at least I wasn't reminded all the time of how many users were posting comments as the thread literally unraveled. Interestingly enough, it was going in the "right" direction and then switched, slowly at first, but gathered steam with many admins changing their minds. It reminded me of some RfAs that have gone from support to oppose in a hurry. In my view, it was an "end justifies the means" argument and CC became the punching bag bogeyman. I haven't been to Italy in a while, but I enjoyed the countryside, the food, and looking at all the pretty people. I've always found parts of Europe more livable than the US.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with you. I mean, sure, CC's edits were wrong and DS was right, as far as the underlying content dispute is concerned, but they could have asked another administrator to block CC and it would have been done very quickly. No need to do so themselves. But, well, in the end I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with some administrators whom I respect... Interestingly enough the discussion was closed as no consensus, in the end. So we may not be that out of touch, only a bit. It'll be interesting to see if this marks the beginning of a shift in the way the community interprets involvedness or if it was simply a blip.

Aside from that, I have been to the US twice and was in absolute awe of your national parks, but when it comes to cities, I'll be a bit of a flag-waver and confess that I do prefer (Western) Europe, really. I haven't been to the US long enough to make an informed judgment, but European cities feel more livable, I agree. One thing that surprised me was how much you depend on a car in the US. I have lived in a few different places here and felt I needed it so much less frequently. But, yeah, your nature is breathtaking, I can't think of many places that compare to what I saw in the Americas... — Salvio ^giuliano 08:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Salvio, A few months ago , you worked on a report I filed, where I suspected that anothe ruser had been using multiple accounts to edit war their favored version into an article- [1].

You confirmed my suspicion and the user was warned, but you also noted that I was not blameless either, for edit warring with them.

That user is now back to that same article, repeatedly inserting material that I think is improper (as I explained in the talk page), and does not engage on the article's talk page. what should I do here, instead of reverting them and asking them to discuss it? Red Slapper (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Red Slapper, I have read your edit and Pirolam's and, at first glance, I see some problems with both versions. First of all, this is a WP:BLP and Wikipedia has strict rules about biographical content, so as not to do harm to living people. From a cursory examination, some of Pirolam's additions seem appropriate from a BLP standpoint.
For instance, where he changes "[i]n 2020, Yale University fired Lee from her voluntary medical faculty position for breaking the Goldwater rule in her evaluations of Alan Dershowitz and Trump" to "[i]n 2020, Yale University fired Lee from her voluntary medical faculty position for allegedly breaking the Goldwater rule in her speech regrading [sic] Alan Dershowitz and Trump", to me his version seems more in keeping with policy.
Then again, I think that writing "[i]n April 2017, Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the ethics of speaking about the dangers of Donald Trump" instead of "[i]n April 2017, Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the ethics of speaking about the mental health of Donald Trump" is less appropriate.
He also seems to be an WP:SPA, which you do not seem to be. He does not engage in discussions, you try to. What I find strange is that nobody else has edited the article in a while and, so, the recent edit history is basically you and he reverting each other... My suggestion, therefore, would be to try and follow WP:DR. Pick one of the possible methods and try to follow it. I confess that I was tempted to impose a partial block on Pirolam, to force him to discuss the issue, but I can't really justify blocking him and not you. Yes, you are trying to discuss the issue, but blocking only one party to an edit war risks being perceived as taking sides. — Salvio ^giuliano 10:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests
• Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks
• Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks

• Noindexed pages