Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 9 February 2012

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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.

Archives

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8 - Archive 9 - Archive 10 - Archive 11 - Archive 12 - Archive 13 - Archive 14 - Archive 15 - Archive 16 - Archive 17 - Archive 18 - Archive 19 - Archive 20 - Archive 21 - Archive 22 - Archive 23 - Archive 24 - Archive 25 - Archive 26 - Archive 27 - Archive 28 - Archive 29 - Archive 30 - Archive 31 - Archive 32 - Archive 33 - Archive 34 - Archive 35 - Archive 36 - Archive 37 - Archive 38 - Archive 39 - Archive 40 - Archive 41 - Archive 42 - Archive 43

Rollback question

Hi, thanks for accepting my rollback request a few days ago; I've got a question about when it can be used. It says everywhere that it can only be used to revert clear vandalism, not simply good faith edits. But if I were to come upon a good faith edit that was not vandalism, but was incorrect and simply needed to be removed immediately, how would this edit be removed, if not with rollback? Perhaps my definition of good faith is wrong, but this seemed a bit confusing to me. Thanks! Delaywaves • talk 03:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, such an edit can be removed using the undo button or using Twinkle's "rollback (AGF)" option; rollback is, usually, only meant for clear-cut cases of vandalism, because it doesn't allow you to enter an edit summary – there is also another case: where you have to revert many similar wrong edits made by the same user, due to a misuse of WP:AWB for instance. I can't think of any case where a good-faith edit needs to be removed so fast that the undo button won't do, but, in those cases, you can always invoke WP:IAR and, then, leave a note on the other editor's talk page, explaining him what you just did. Salvio 11:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an honour for me

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For support and patience during an editor's rough time. You are one of the ROCKS of this place. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And welcome back!

I've just added the barnstar to my collection! Salvio 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The welcome is deeply appreciated. I could not thank you enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 00:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Serama protection

You recently declined semi-protection for Serama as there was not enough recent activity to justify it. However, before the previous semi, there was the same changes being made with unsourced information about living people being inserted. This has continued, and I thought I'd ask for a reevaluation of semi before reverting again. Thanks, CMD (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree; hence, I've semied the article for a week. Cheers. Salvio 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. ( Salvio )

Completed earlier today. Welcome! :) The Helpful One 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And also thanks for all the work you all have done, creating the new interface. Salvio 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just curious - what is UTRS? I know of OTRS but presume that this is not a typo? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

UTRS – a.k.a. Unblock Ticket Request System – is the evolution of unblock-en-l, the mailing list where blocked users could appeal their blocks when they were not allowed or not able to edit their talk pages. The new interface is similar to OTRS, I believe, though I'm unfamiliar with the latter, but it only deals with block appeals. Salvio 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I think that I've seen something about a new interface being rolled out. If it makes adminship chores easier then it can only be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Why notify me? I was not the one removing REF pieces but was the one making request for TALK and also more consensus WP:CON Last I checked that was still a major component of Wiki. --Sallynice (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I notified you so that you're aware of the fact that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions – that's rather tautologic, I know... Those edits of yours were problematic, because you kept reverting another user who was removing material from a biography of a living person because he thought that it was in violation of WP:BLP. Said policy mandates that when material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. Salvio 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

continued reverts

Hi, please take a look at this: here RicardoKlement (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Issued a warning – I really would prefer to solve this issue without using my tools. Should he revert once more, I'll block. Thanks for getting this to my attention. Salvio 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Things appear to be getting very heated all round at the moment. I think that you may end having to use those tools, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Sitush. I just cleared my own talk page as a result of the original dispute having ended. RicardoKlement (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You used a somewhat insulting edit summary. You need to start learning, and fast. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Nothing blockable, in my opinion, but certainly sub-optimal! Salvio 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Many thanks for your kind words! Regards, GiantSnowman 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Caste issues

This was very much needed, thanks for taking the initiative. I'm thinking of making the "Indian subcontinent" part more clearer to include India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. I don't know much about Myanmar and Thailand caste equations, so we can probably include that if needed. Lynch7 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Burma, not Myanmar <g> The person to speak with regarding that place is probably Blade. Do these issues extend into Afghanistan? - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not really familiar with the various nuances of the issue (I studied – and researched a bit about – Hindu Law back when I was attending university, but this is it), so I welcome any and all corrections. As I said to Sitush, feel free to tweak my proposal. I'm not offended. Salvio 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthstones

Hi Salvio. Though I know this is a bit distant from your pace of work, could you help me find a photo chart of birthstones we can use? This article looks ridiculous without one. If you can't help, permission to copy this to other admins or editors? Please reply my talk, ok? Thanks!--Djathinkimacowboy 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Truth has not triumphed

Thank you. You know why. Now, the sooner those discretionary sanctions come in, the better. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. And the title of the section made me laugh. Salvio 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I could equally have said that "Verifiability always triumphs". Perhaps I should create a sock account in that name? Erm, then again, maybe not. :S Sitush (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, that's an awesome username. I'm off to WP:CHUS! Verifiability always triumphs 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Misplaced Pages, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI closure

An admin who has apparently become involved in ARS just closed an ANI report I listed regarding the group and editor NorthAmerica1000. There was a very clear argument presented as it concerns the actions by North in creating this list immediately after the template got deleted in flagrant disregard for concerns raised by the community. Drmies also closed it within half an hour of an editor's comment and within five hours of it being listed. This is just like the last time when people were rushing to close any discussion about the group's activities.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit surprised when the thread was closed, but I assume Drmies did it because he saw that I had snow closed the MfD and honestly believed there was nothing else to add, since the community had already indirectly endorsed this practice. That said, you really ought to talk to Drmies first. Salvio 11:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I seriously question Drmies' impartiality on this question. The response I just got at the editor's talk page, in light of the fact that Drmies has been involved with one of the incidents regarding the list, suggests re-opening would be best.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about unblock

Ciao, Salvio. I see here that you unblocked EPublicRelationsMT, giving the reason as "per request on unblock-l". I wonder if you could give me more detail about the reason for this unblock? I am asking because it looks as though there may be some sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi James, I believe the editor's use of a sock or, more probably, a meat was an honest mistake: they did not know it was against the rules – and, in fact, when the new account was blocked, they immediately ceased socking and contacted the unblock mailing list. There we had a discussion and the user appeared willing to follow WP:BESTCOI and to change the account's name, undertaking not to edit the articles adding spam links any longer, accepting to propose changes on the article's talk pages instead. I was convinced of their good faith and actioned the unblock request – blocks are cheap after all. Apparently, the user has not edited since and has not filed a rename request; I'm tempted to softblock again, inviting them to create a new account... Salvio 11:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Overcategorization/User categories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Overcategorization/User categories. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)