I've noticed you've nominated a few articles for GA & FL that don't seem to meet the requirements. Before attempting to nominate any more articles for GA and FL, please can you read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria (particularly the section on what cannot be a GA), and the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. You may also like to look at examples of GAs and FLs on football topics, there is a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Featured content of all football related GAs and FLs. In short, list articles cannot be GAs- they can only reach FL- and articles with only a small amount of text content (excluding the tables) will not be considered to have broad and comprehensive coverage, and so will fail GA or FL. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw that you submitted this at WP:GAN, for consideration as a good article. Please be aware that list articles do not qualify for good articles. You can try WP:FLC for featured lists but please be aware that the sourcing is way below the standard required. Please also note WP:RS and that other wikis are not considered to be reliable sources and should never be used as a reference. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Although I’m not an admin, I saw your request for rollback. Per JJMC89, you have no anti-vandalism experience, and most of your reverts were either bad ones or reverting your own ones. For rollback, you need to make good reverts. Please read Wikipedia:Rollback for more info. Regards, - Cupper52 Discuss! 10:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an
Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at
2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia. You may not remove ACTIVE afd notices when a discussion is taking place.
CUPIDICAE💕 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Coppa Italia trophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I think the block is excessive because I have always made edits in good faith and remember that: "Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum" Dr Salvus ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dr Salvus, in February you posted at Talk:Cemetery of San Fernando/GA1 that you supported promoting Cemetery of San Fernando to good article status. For good articles, only one reviewer is required to approve an article's nomination, provided that the articles fulfils the good article criteria. Reviewers should follow the instructions at WP:GAREVIEW while conducting their assessment. Will you be reviewing this article, or can another editor review it? Z1720 ( talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, withdrawing the featured list candidate, and then re-nominating it a few days later- as you have now down twice- it not helpful or constructive. It gives the impression that you're trying to hide the comments from the last review, without necessarily addressing them. Why couldn't you have just left the old review open, rather than "withdrawing" it and then creating a new one. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, on the basis of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:UBX/Male chauvinist and the inappropriate edit to Nikkimaria user page ( diff) alone, you face imminent sanctions for WP:CIR problems of a provocational nature. You must slow down. Continuing to engage in advanced processes and/or userpage cruft is almost certain to end up badly, because you clearly lack the competence to do so at this time. There are 6 million articles on the project that are not GA/FA/userpages, so, best to focus on contributing there, cautiously, because you've used up pretty much all the goodwill that is extended to newcomers. Thank you in advance for your attention. 14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus. I see you are getting many messages about following procedures here on English WP, and I hope you will try to understand them, take them to heart, and slow down so that you can comply.
My current example is your apparent wish to request a 2nd peer review (PR) for List of Coppa Italia finals. There is a process for that, clearly described at WP:PR/Instructions, but you did not follow those steps. Instead, you manually changed the {{Peer review}} template on the list's Talk page (reverted by me), and then manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2. You should know two things about that page:
I hope you can find a mentor to help you in your work here, and that you will pay closer attention to the procedural directions offered on English Wikipedia. I wonder why you don't focus more on Italian Wikipedia, where perhaps there's not so much of a language barrier. In any case, good luck, — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Because you deleted John's CSD out of process and have repeatedly re-created that page despite guidance, I will block you from that page the next time you re-create it. Please stop and listen to the advice from many editors who are trying to help you. StarM 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your contribution with translating this article from the French wikipedia. Please note that it is a wikipedia license requirement to attribute the foreign language wiki which you translate from. See Help:Translation#License requirements for details. Thanks, Gricehead ( talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus. I see you are getting many messages about following procedures here on English WP, and I hope you will try to understand them, take them to heart, and slow down so that you can comply.
My current example is your apparent wish to request a 2nd peer review (PR) for List of Coppa Italia finals. There is a process for that, clearly described at WP:PR/Instructions, but you did not follow those steps. Instead, you manually changed the {{Peer review}} template on the list's Talk page (reverted by me), and then manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2. You should know two things about that page:
I hope you can find a mentor to help you in your work here, and that you will pay closer attention to the procedural directions offered on English Wikipedia. I wonder why you don't focus more on Italian Wikipedia, where perhaps there's not so much of a language barrier. In any case, good luck, — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Because you deleted John's CSD out of process and have repeatedly re-created that page despite guidance, I will block you from that page the next time you re-create it. Please stop and listen to the advice from many editors who are trying to help you. StarM 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
My friend, this is the exact same thing that I and others tried to explain to you, and which got you in such trouble, earlier this month. You have apparently jumped (once again) to a somewhat advanced step to get your List of Coppa Italia finals into Did You Know, but you did it without following the instructions. If you had followed those instructions, you would have seen that List of Coppa Italia finals does not meet the requirements at WP:DYKRULES. It was neither created, nor expanded five-fold, in the last 7 days, and it's not a GA at all anyway. You also listed the article under March 27, which is supposed to be the date it was expanded fivefold, but of course, the article isn't even four times the size it was when you created it last June.
I strongly recommend that you withdraw your nomination, so that you don't needlessly irritate the hard-working editors who tend the DYK project. Otherwise, I can well imagine that somebody will bring you back to AN/I, and you don't want that. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ JohnFromPinckney, Star Mississippi, and DanCherek: I apologize. I think I have not read the instructions correctly. Now I just have to withdraw my candidacy. Dr Salvus 09:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ DanCherek: After this, I intend to withdraw the application. Maybe I'm too distracted but I can't find the procedures to withdraw the application Dr Salvus 10:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
JUst noting this parallel thread on my Talk: User talk:Star Mississippi#My distructive changes While I have warned this user that he's very close to a trip back to ANI, I do think he's trying to edit in good faith. This is a genuine lack of competence, rather than one of malice, and the user may be young. Hope this can have a different outcome. StarM 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
To avoid this I have decided not to name any articles in GA, FA, FL and DYK. Have you decided this now, or are you saying that you decided this before? Because you were strongly advised to make that decision a couple of weeks ago, right, but you still chose to nominate Template:Did you know nominations/List of Coppa Italia finals two days ago?
@ Bilorv: I decided to abandon the GA, FA and FL awards until the end of 2021 after the opening of the discussion WP: ANI, to which was also added DYK after having failed this nomination. Dr Salvus 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Star Mississippi and Bilorv: I study the behavior of administrators. I look closely at the decisions you administrators make and when you have been successful candidates for sysop. I would have a thousand questions to ask an administrator about administrator action procedures, but I would end up boring you. I often dream of becoming a sysop at night. But for now I'm not obsessed and I'm not in a hurry. Dr Salvus 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please don't worry about the messed up ping. It's hard at times and I struggle to keep up with the changes to Wikipedia. I became an admin at a very different time in my life. I certainly couldn't have earned it now. You can see I was very active in 2008-09 but other than 2012, minimally so until last year when my workspace changed and I had more ability to edit. Personally I enjoy updating articles and writing new ones. I don't do many "admin jobs" although I did monitor WP:UAA reports for a while as I was active at a time of day when others weren't and could help keep the make manageable. You can also see the kinds of pages I've created. I think, Dr. Salvus, if you look around the football projects you'll find articles that need work. As you work on them, like you did above helping Spiderone with non-notable articles in a language you could read that (I presume) he can't, you'll become a more accomplished editor. Don't stress about being an admin. It really isn't that exciting. StarM 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Star Mississippi:
I
I probably had a desire to be sysop due to my narcissistic nature. I thought being sysop was a series of privileges, but instead it involves a series of commitments, such as checking the WP: ANI frequently. I would like to know more about this topic so I would like to ask other sysops what life is like as an administrator. Thank you for explaining your version to . Dr Salvus 22:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)me
::@
Star Mississippi: Let's change subject. I am no longer interested in the FL nomination of
List of Coppa Italia finals so I will ask you this question out of simple curiosity. Do you think the failure of this FL candidacy of this page is caused by the lack of data about attendance on the oldest finals?
Dr
Salvus 19:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the article meets all FL criterias (exempt the 6th). Unfortunately I shouldn't have candidate it for the third time, which made this article unsuitable for FL. I have made all the improvements proposed. Now I will not name any GA, FA, FL and DYK until December. Dr Salvus 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bilorv. I am unfamiliar with the workings of featured lists, but in addition to the links Bilorv gave you, Dr_Salvus I recommend the thread above from JohnFromPinckney which had some helpful information as to process and how they work. StarM 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv I probably won't have read enough or I won't have explained myself well. Not a problem, it means that I will read the indications even more Dr Salvus 21:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, I say this in the nicest possible way, but I do see you attempting to pick up all sorts of parts of wikipedia all at once, and my suggestion would be to calm down. Wikipedia is a vast beast with lots of different places people sit and work. As you master one thing, then maybe dip your toe into another. I fear you wish to have advanced rights (admin, rollbacker, pending changes etc.) but we only give these things to people who can and have shown for many months/years that they are trustworthy and know what they are doing. Rather than focussing on things that may be good in a potential RfA, you may be better picking a particular subject and running with that. If you wish to work on content, then find an article on a subject you like, and expand it to include more information and fix it up. When you have done a lot of these, you can look into what the criteria is for GAs or DYKs and see if an article you have made is in a similar nic to others. Or, don't do that, and continue to improve articles, which is what we are all here for.
Or, maybe you'd like to work with counter vandalism. I don't know everything about this, but you don't need advanced rights to do this. You can do this for a while, get to know the processes and then maybe ask for a toolset. I fear you move on too quick and don't read everything which can only hurt you in the long run. I'm here if you need some help, but I feel you would be better off finding your needlehouse. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Star Mississippi and Lee Vilenski: I will listen to the advice. I hope I never forget that. Dr Salvus 13:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Dr Salvus,
I am merely another editor on Wikipedia with a certain amount of experience (twelve year's worth, in fact). I have no admin-type privileges at all on WP, I just try to write and/or improve articles. However, I have recently noticed your name cropping up all over the place, and not in a particularly positive way. I will be very frank, and please don't take this the wrong way. You seem to be completely intent on ignoring the well-intentioned advice which many experienced editors have given you. You seem to have several
bees in your bonnet and many
ants in your pants as well.
Everyone is bending over backwards to ensure that your time here is as positive as can be, but you are making it as difficult as possible for yourself and everyone else. The idea of you becoming an administrator is simply laughable, given the quality of your current activity on WP. You recently asked on the help desk about a 'reputation level'. Quite frankly, your reputation is literally about as bad as it can possibly get. Looking at the level of your behaviour, I would suggest that at some point you are very likely to really piss someone off, and suddenly you will be blocked indefinitely.
I normally don't bother to express my feelings this way, but Wikipedia is not a playground toy: it is a high-quality, world-famous encyclopedia, one of the ten most-accessed websites in the world. It is possible that your personal difficulties are interfering with your ability to edit Wikipedia in an adult and positive way. I have been depressed / bipolar all my life, I have also had acute appendicitis, cancer (Hodgkin's lymphoma), heart attacks, a stent operation, a severe stroke and pericarditis all in the space of around 3½ years. I am very lucky to be alive at all. Editing Wikipedia has been a huge encouragement just to carry on living.
But your general attitude here will likely end in disaster. Please stop making a damn nuisance of yourself and content yourself with small tasks until you have learned how Wikipedia works - it takes many, many years. We all wish you to do well here on WP, but I feel you are about to find out how swiftly editing privileges can be removed unless you considerably modify your behaviour. This is not a threat, merely a well-intentioned request to take a
wikibreak and do something else with your life for a while, like sort your head out. Please don't reply. With very best wishes,
MinorProphet (
talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus has been persistently nominating articles for GA and FL that do not meet the criteria, as well as poor attempts to do a GA review, which has left some GA nominations stranded in limbo. It seems clear to me that they don't have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and that the user is possibly just interested in Wikipedia:Hat collecting (they have also had a rollback request denied). Problematic issues include:
Their article space editing is generally acceptable, which is why I am not suggesting a WP:CIR indefinate block. Instead, I would like to propose the following topic ban for Dr Salvus:
I hope we can get consensus for this, because it's a generally good faith editor, who is just causing quite a bit of disruption to the GA and FL processes. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I added one more thing. And I think some of the poor GA/FL noms may have been deleted, so if an admin could checked their deleted contribs, that would be appreciated. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this editor has a poor understanding of Wikipedia types of content. I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Geometry_Dash_levels that he should probably take a break from lists entirely, but that warning has not been heeded. A related issue is basically User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Mike_Patton_quote_removal_edit I'm going to make mistakes, deal with it which is perhaps not the ideal response. Suggest a pause and perhaps a mentor who can walk this editor through Wikipedia, and not hat collecting which all of this reads as. StarM 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Next issue with same editor; creating (rather poor) translations of non-enwiki articles, without attribution. Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, created yesterday evening, is a partial translation of fr:Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, but omitting redlinks completely (thus mangling phrases). In itself not a major issue, but it seems that every single thing this editor does is problematic in some way, and the learning curve very, very steep. Their previous article creation from yesterday, Giorgio Marchetti, similarly was an unattributed translation of it:Giorgio Marchetti. The talk page of that article indicates that Dr. Salvus is (or claims to be) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which seems like a very bad idea. Fram ( talk) 08:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The latest (that I've noticed so far) is that over a period of an hour he created 78 new user talk pages, apparently at random, adding Template:Welcome, before making his next edit, to update the userbox with a higher contributions count (last updated barely 24 hours previous). Welcoming users (named and IPs alike) is friendly and all, but it seems like he might be here to collect hats as much as anything else. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
What's your secret to making so many changes in the mainspace? You are my idol— JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 21:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
While Dr. Salvus has ceased welcoming editors who have not edited, he continues to edit in the featured content area, see Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2 despite guidance from JohnFromPinckney and the concerns SandyGeorgia identified above and(I think) telling me he wouldn't. He also semi retired and I think we are at an impasse until/unless his requests for mentorship are accepted. I have no doubt he's editing in good faith, I'm just not sure he has the skills. StarM 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope to don't fail the procedures, which, of course, he did. I had just finished cleaning up his last PR request, by providing linked, step-by- step explanations in my edit summaries. But I am doubting the usefulness of these efforts. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Foxnpichu who has agreed to adopt this user so Fox is aware that the issue is broader than grammar. StarM
I decided to focus more on en.wiki instead of it.wiki as I don't like the rules of this that wiki. I don't usually write prose texts and therefore the language barrier is not a problem.
DrSalvus (
talk) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the rules of this wiki, which at first glance makes people want to respond, "well, what are you doing here, then"? But after some thought, it seems possible that you meant that you don't like the rules of that wiki, meaning the Italian Wikipedia. An (apparent) little grammatical slip like this could cause a lot of upset, depending on when you make it, and with whom, and about what. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I understood the cause of many mistakes made by me, for example the wrong procedures for peer review or the wrong evaluations for the GA and FL that caused this discussion. What do you advise me to do? DrSalvus ( talk)
I would like to know if you have continuously proposed cancellation because I also had the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France in peer review? DrSalvus ( talk) 15:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, since last time you weren't clear, could you give me the list again of the reasons why List of Coppa Italia finals didn't become an FL? Dr Salvus 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
continue to ignore editors' feedback. That was less than an hour ago. And now you have posted here, asking for the FL reasons (which I don't have), totally ignoring Bilorv's feedback. This is not the approach which leads to success.
I have decided to move away from the English Wikipedia. It is not an "April Fool", I will study better the negative and positive feedback I have received, the discussion WP: ANI and something else. Dr Salvus 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I have withdrawn the candidate. But I see that you write that there are proposal that I have not put in place. I have checked well but there are no proposals that I have not taken into consideration. Of course I can be wrong
Dr Salvus (
talk) 21:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not the FL reviewers' responsibility. If you want to get the list to FL status, you have to be willing to put in the work. I'm not trying to be mean; we all simply have our own projects we're working on and can't dedicate time to yours as well.
If you're interested in looking in where to look for archives, I would suggest trying the Wikipedia Library. It has access to databases, especially newspapers, that may have the information you're looking for. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you briefly explain to me why you opposed the FL page nomination? DrSalvus ( talk) 14:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:FLC}}
to that page. You did the first part (adding the template), but not the second part. If you go to the
talk page now, you'll notice the redlink indicating that this nomination was not properly initiated. It is important to open the nomination correctly so all of the relevant tools are displayed on the FLC page and so the bot can properly close the nomination.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 16:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
While I do not necessarily oppose the nomination based on content, I also agree that there are still issues that need to be addressed, as I noted in the previous FLC.Generally, I do not outright oppose nominations that need improvement; I make a list of things that need to be improved, and the nominator works to address those comments. This is what I did (and other reviewers did as well) on the previous nomination; we added our comments for improvement and tried to clarify whenever there was confusion over our comments. However, since you closed that nomination, I'm not going to keep working to provide comments. In short: this list is not ready for featured list status, and because of the cycle of repeated nominations and withdrawals, I'm not going to keep commenting on nominations. I know this must feel bad to hear, but if you complete the peer review, reread comments in past nominations, and continue to make changes, I'd be more than happy to consider a nomination further down the road. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Now I am no longer interested in FL's nomination of
List of Coppa Italia finals. But do you think that the lack of data on the spectators of the oldest finals was a problem?
Dr
Salvus 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Did I forget to make some changes? Dr Salvus 22:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I had asked ChrisTheDude without receiving an answer. Now I have to give up because it will never be an FL and I don't want to return in the WP:ANI Dr Salvus 22:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You are right, but my biggest fear is that I will make a mistake, go back to the WP: ANI and be blocked. I am resigned. Dr Salvus 10:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I will take into consideration what has been said Dr Salvus 19:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just as a note - you should never close a discussion in which you have !voted at XfD - per WP:NACINV. In this case, I don't think it's worth overturning the close, but any further examples of this are likely to see you taken to ANI pretty quickly by someone. Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 07:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your close. What on earth made you think it was a good idea? If you try anything like that again you will be blocked, OK? Giant Snowman 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
GiantSnowman Ok, I'll learn from this error. I have already add this fact in my Thing not to do list. Dr Salvus 09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed you've nominated a few articles for GA & FL that don't seem to meet the requirements. Before attempting to nominate any more articles for GA and FL, please can you read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria (particularly the section on what cannot be a GA), and the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. You may also like to look at examples of GAs and FLs on football topics, there is a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Featured content of all football related GAs and FLs. In short, list articles cannot be GAs- they can only reach FL- and articles with only a small amount of text content (excluding the tables) will not be considered to have broad and comprehensive coverage, and so will fail GA or FL. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw that you submitted this at WP:GAN, for consideration as a good article. Please be aware that list articles do not qualify for good articles. You can try WP:FLC for featured lists but please be aware that the sourcing is way below the standard required. Please also note WP:RS and that other wikis are not considered to be reliable sources and should never be used as a reference. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Although I’m not an admin, I saw your request for rollback. Per JJMC89, you have no anti-vandalism experience, and most of your reverts were either bad ones or reverting your own ones. For rollback, you need to make good reverts. Please read Wikipedia:Rollback for more info. Regards, - Cupper52 Discuss! 10:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an
Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at
2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia. You may not remove ACTIVE afd notices when a discussion is taking place.
CUPIDICAE💕 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Coppa Italia trophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I think the block is excessive because I have always made edits in good faith and remember that: "Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum" Dr Salvus ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dr Salvus, in February you posted at Talk:Cemetery of San Fernando/GA1 that you supported promoting Cemetery of San Fernando to good article status. For good articles, only one reviewer is required to approve an article's nomination, provided that the articles fulfils the good article criteria. Reviewers should follow the instructions at WP:GAREVIEW while conducting their assessment. Will you be reviewing this article, or can another editor review it? Z1720 ( talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, withdrawing the featured list candidate, and then re-nominating it a few days later- as you have now down twice- it not helpful or constructive. It gives the impression that you're trying to hide the comments from the last review, without necessarily addressing them. Why couldn't you have just left the old review open, rather than "withdrawing" it and then creating a new one. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, on the basis of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:UBX/Male chauvinist and the inappropriate edit to Nikkimaria user page ( diff) alone, you face imminent sanctions for WP:CIR problems of a provocational nature. You must slow down. Continuing to engage in advanced processes and/or userpage cruft is almost certain to end up badly, because you clearly lack the competence to do so at this time. There are 6 million articles on the project that are not GA/FA/userpages, so, best to focus on contributing there, cautiously, because you've used up pretty much all the goodwill that is extended to newcomers. Thank you in advance for your attention. 14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus. I see you are getting many messages about following procedures here on English WP, and I hope you will try to understand them, take them to heart, and slow down so that you can comply.
My current example is your apparent wish to request a 2nd peer review (PR) for List of Coppa Italia finals. There is a process for that, clearly described at WP:PR/Instructions, but you did not follow those steps. Instead, you manually changed the {{Peer review}} template on the list's Talk page (reverted by me), and then manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2. You should know two things about that page:
I hope you can find a mentor to help you in your work here, and that you will pay closer attention to the procedural directions offered on English Wikipedia. I wonder why you don't focus more on Italian Wikipedia, where perhaps there's not so much of a language barrier. In any case, good luck, — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Because you deleted John's CSD out of process and have repeatedly re-created that page despite guidance, I will block you from that page the next time you re-create it. Please stop and listen to the advice from many editors who are trying to help you. StarM 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your contribution with translating this article from the French wikipedia. Please note that it is a wikipedia license requirement to attribute the foreign language wiki which you translate from. See Help:Translation#License requirements for details. Thanks, Gricehead ( talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus. I see you are getting many messages about following procedures here on English WP, and I hope you will try to understand them, take them to heart, and slow down so that you can comply.
My current example is your apparent wish to request a 2nd peer review (PR) for List of Coppa Italia finals. There is a process for that, clearly described at WP:PR/Instructions, but you did not follow those steps. Instead, you manually changed the {{Peer review}} template on the list's Talk page (reverted by me), and then manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2. You should know two things about that page:
I hope you can find a mentor to help you in your work here, and that you will pay closer attention to the procedural directions offered on English Wikipedia. I wonder why you don't focus more on Italian Wikipedia, where perhaps there's not so much of a language barrier. In any case, good luck, — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Because you deleted John's CSD out of process and have repeatedly re-created that page despite guidance, I will block you from that page the next time you re-create it. Please stop and listen to the advice from many editors who are trying to help you. StarM 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
My friend, this is the exact same thing that I and others tried to explain to you, and which got you in such trouble, earlier this month. You have apparently jumped (once again) to a somewhat advanced step to get your List of Coppa Italia finals into Did You Know, but you did it without following the instructions. If you had followed those instructions, you would have seen that List of Coppa Italia finals does not meet the requirements at WP:DYKRULES. It was neither created, nor expanded five-fold, in the last 7 days, and it's not a GA at all anyway. You also listed the article under March 27, which is supposed to be the date it was expanded fivefold, but of course, the article isn't even four times the size it was when you created it last June.
I strongly recommend that you withdraw your nomination, so that you don't needlessly irritate the hard-working editors who tend the DYK project. Otherwise, I can well imagine that somebody will bring you back to AN/I, and you don't want that. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ JohnFromPinckney, Star Mississippi, and DanCherek: I apologize. I think I have not read the instructions correctly. Now I just have to withdraw my candidacy. Dr Salvus 09:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ DanCherek: After this, I intend to withdraw the application. Maybe I'm too distracted but I can't find the procedures to withdraw the application Dr Salvus 10:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
JUst noting this parallel thread on my Talk: User talk:Star Mississippi#My distructive changes While I have warned this user that he's very close to a trip back to ANI, I do think he's trying to edit in good faith. This is a genuine lack of competence, rather than one of malice, and the user may be young. Hope this can have a different outcome. StarM 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
To avoid this I have decided not to name any articles in GA, FA, FL and DYK. Have you decided this now, or are you saying that you decided this before? Because you were strongly advised to make that decision a couple of weeks ago, right, but you still chose to nominate Template:Did you know nominations/List of Coppa Italia finals two days ago?
@ Bilorv: I decided to abandon the GA, FA and FL awards until the end of 2021 after the opening of the discussion WP: ANI, to which was also added DYK after having failed this nomination. Dr Salvus 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Star Mississippi and Bilorv: I study the behavior of administrators. I look closely at the decisions you administrators make and when you have been successful candidates for sysop. I would have a thousand questions to ask an administrator about administrator action procedures, but I would end up boring you. I often dream of becoming a sysop at night. But for now I'm not obsessed and I'm not in a hurry. Dr Salvus 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please don't worry about the messed up ping. It's hard at times and I struggle to keep up with the changes to Wikipedia. I became an admin at a very different time in my life. I certainly couldn't have earned it now. You can see I was very active in 2008-09 but other than 2012, minimally so until last year when my workspace changed and I had more ability to edit. Personally I enjoy updating articles and writing new ones. I don't do many "admin jobs" although I did monitor WP:UAA reports for a while as I was active at a time of day when others weren't and could help keep the make manageable. You can also see the kinds of pages I've created. I think, Dr. Salvus, if you look around the football projects you'll find articles that need work. As you work on them, like you did above helping Spiderone with non-notable articles in a language you could read that (I presume) he can't, you'll become a more accomplished editor. Don't stress about being an admin. It really isn't that exciting. StarM 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Star Mississippi:
I
I probably had a desire to be sysop due to my narcissistic nature. I thought being sysop was a series of privileges, but instead it involves a series of commitments, such as checking the WP: ANI frequently. I would like to know more about this topic so I would like to ask other sysops what life is like as an administrator. Thank you for explaining your version to . Dr Salvus 22:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)me
::@
Star Mississippi: Let's change subject. I am no longer interested in the FL nomination of
List of Coppa Italia finals so I will ask you this question out of simple curiosity. Do you think the failure of this FL candidacy of this page is caused by the lack of data about attendance on the oldest finals?
Dr
Salvus 19:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the article meets all FL criterias (exempt the 6th). Unfortunately I shouldn't have candidate it for the third time, which made this article unsuitable for FL. I have made all the improvements proposed. Now I will not name any GA, FA, FL and DYK until December. Dr Salvus 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bilorv. I am unfamiliar with the workings of featured lists, but in addition to the links Bilorv gave you, Dr_Salvus I recommend the thread above from JohnFromPinckney which had some helpful information as to process and how they work. StarM 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv I probably won't have read enough or I won't have explained myself well. Not a problem, it means that I will read the indications even more Dr Salvus 21:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, I say this in the nicest possible way, but I do see you attempting to pick up all sorts of parts of wikipedia all at once, and my suggestion would be to calm down. Wikipedia is a vast beast with lots of different places people sit and work. As you master one thing, then maybe dip your toe into another. I fear you wish to have advanced rights (admin, rollbacker, pending changes etc.) but we only give these things to people who can and have shown for many months/years that they are trustworthy and know what they are doing. Rather than focussing on things that may be good in a potential RfA, you may be better picking a particular subject and running with that. If you wish to work on content, then find an article on a subject you like, and expand it to include more information and fix it up. When you have done a lot of these, you can look into what the criteria is for GAs or DYKs and see if an article you have made is in a similar nic to others. Or, don't do that, and continue to improve articles, which is what we are all here for.
Or, maybe you'd like to work with counter vandalism. I don't know everything about this, but you don't need advanced rights to do this. You can do this for a while, get to know the processes and then maybe ask for a toolset. I fear you move on too quick and don't read everything which can only hurt you in the long run. I'm here if you need some help, but I feel you would be better off finding your needlehouse. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Star Mississippi and Lee Vilenski: I will listen to the advice. I hope I never forget that. Dr Salvus 13:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Dr Salvus,
I am merely another editor on Wikipedia with a certain amount of experience (twelve year's worth, in fact). I have no admin-type privileges at all on WP, I just try to write and/or improve articles. However, I have recently noticed your name cropping up all over the place, and not in a particularly positive way. I will be very frank, and please don't take this the wrong way. You seem to be completely intent on ignoring the well-intentioned advice which many experienced editors have given you. You seem to have several
bees in your bonnet and many
ants in your pants as well.
Everyone is bending over backwards to ensure that your time here is as positive as can be, but you are making it as difficult as possible for yourself and everyone else. The idea of you becoming an administrator is simply laughable, given the quality of your current activity on WP. You recently asked on the help desk about a 'reputation level'. Quite frankly, your reputation is literally about as bad as it can possibly get. Looking at the level of your behaviour, I would suggest that at some point you are very likely to really piss someone off, and suddenly you will be blocked indefinitely.
I normally don't bother to express my feelings this way, but Wikipedia is not a playground toy: it is a high-quality, world-famous encyclopedia, one of the ten most-accessed websites in the world. It is possible that your personal difficulties are interfering with your ability to edit Wikipedia in an adult and positive way. I have been depressed / bipolar all my life, I have also had acute appendicitis, cancer (Hodgkin's lymphoma), heart attacks, a stent operation, a severe stroke and pericarditis all in the space of around 3½ years. I am very lucky to be alive at all. Editing Wikipedia has been a huge encouragement just to carry on living.
But your general attitude here will likely end in disaster. Please stop making a damn nuisance of yourself and content yourself with small tasks until you have learned how Wikipedia works - it takes many, many years. We all wish you to do well here on WP, but I feel you are about to find out how swiftly editing privileges can be removed unless you considerably modify your behaviour. This is not a threat, merely a well-intentioned request to take a
wikibreak and do something else with your life for a while, like sort your head out. Please don't reply. With very best wishes,
MinorProphet (
talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus has been persistently nominating articles for GA and FL that do not meet the criteria, as well as poor attempts to do a GA review, which has left some GA nominations stranded in limbo. It seems clear to me that they don't have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and that the user is possibly just interested in Wikipedia:Hat collecting (they have also had a rollback request denied). Problematic issues include:
Their article space editing is generally acceptable, which is why I am not suggesting a WP:CIR indefinate block. Instead, I would like to propose the following topic ban for Dr Salvus:
I hope we can get consensus for this, because it's a generally good faith editor, who is just causing quite a bit of disruption to the GA and FL processes. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I added one more thing. And I think some of the poor GA/FL noms may have been deleted, so if an admin could checked their deleted contribs, that would be appreciated. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this editor has a poor understanding of Wikipedia types of content. I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Geometry_Dash_levels that he should probably take a break from lists entirely, but that warning has not been heeded. A related issue is basically User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Mike_Patton_quote_removal_edit I'm going to make mistakes, deal with it which is perhaps not the ideal response. Suggest a pause and perhaps a mentor who can walk this editor through Wikipedia, and not hat collecting which all of this reads as. StarM 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Next issue with same editor; creating (rather poor) translations of non-enwiki articles, without attribution. Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, created yesterday evening, is a partial translation of fr:Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, but omitting redlinks completely (thus mangling phrases). In itself not a major issue, but it seems that every single thing this editor does is problematic in some way, and the learning curve very, very steep. Their previous article creation from yesterday, Giorgio Marchetti, similarly was an unattributed translation of it:Giorgio Marchetti. The talk page of that article indicates that Dr. Salvus is (or claims to be) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which seems like a very bad idea. Fram ( talk) 08:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The latest (that I've noticed so far) is that over a period of an hour he created 78 new user talk pages, apparently at random, adding Template:Welcome, before making his next edit, to update the userbox with a higher contributions count (last updated barely 24 hours previous). Welcoming users (named and IPs alike) is friendly and all, but it seems like he might be here to collect hats as much as anything else. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
What's your secret to making so many changes in the mainspace? You are my idol— JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 21:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
While Dr. Salvus has ceased welcoming editors who have not edited, he continues to edit in the featured content area, see Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2 despite guidance from JohnFromPinckney and the concerns SandyGeorgia identified above and(I think) telling me he wouldn't. He also semi retired and I think we are at an impasse until/unless his requests for mentorship are accepted. I have no doubt he's editing in good faith, I'm just not sure he has the skills. StarM 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope to don't fail the procedures, which, of course, he did. I had just finished cleaning up his last PR request, by providing linked, step-by- step explanations in my edit summaries. But I am doubting the usefulness of these efforts. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Foxnpichu who has agreed to adopt this user so Fox is aware that the issue is broader than grammar. StarM
I decided to focus more on en.wiki instead of it.wiki as I don't like the rules of this that wiki. I don't usually write prose texts and therefore the language barrier is not a problem.
DrSalvus (
talk) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the rules of this wiki, which at first glance makes people want to respond, "well, what are you doing here, then"? But after some thought, it seems possible that you meant that you don't like the rules of that wiki, meaning the Italian Wikipedia. An (apparent) little grammatical slip like this could cause a lot of upset, depending on when you make it, and with whom, and about what. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I understood the cause of many mistakes made by me, for example the wrong procedures for peer review or the wrong evaluations for the GA and FL that caused this discussion. What do you advise me to do? DrSalvus ( talk)
I would like to know if you have continuously proposed cancellation because I also had the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France in peer review? DrSalvus ( talk) 15:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, since last time you weren't clear, could you give me the list again of the reasons why List of Coppa Italia finals didn't become an FL? Dr Salvus 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
continue to ignore editors' feedback. That was less than an hour ago. And now you have posted here, asking for the FL reasons (which I don't have), totally ignoring Bilorv's feedback. This is not the approach which leads to success.
I have decided to move away from the English Wikipedia. It is not an "April Fool", I will study better the negative and positive feedback I have received, the discussion WP: ANI and something else. Dr Salvus 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I have withdrawn the candidate. But I see that you write that there are proposal that I have not put in place. I have checked well but there are no proposals that I have not taken into consideration. Of course I can be wrong
Dr Salvus (
talk) 21:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not the FL reviewers' responsibility. If you want to get the list to FL status, you have to be willing to put in the work. I'm not trying to be mean; we all simply have our own projects we're working on and can't dedicate time to yours as well.
If you're interested in looking in where to look for archives, I would suggest trying the Wikipedia Library. It has access to databases, especially newspapers, that may have the information you're looking for. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you briefly explain to me why you opposed the FL page nomination? DrSalvus ( talk) 14:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:FLC}}
to that page. You did the first part (adding the template), but not the second part. If you go to the
talk page now, you'll notice the redlink indicating that this nomination was not properly initiated. It is important to open the nomination correctly so all of the relevant tools are displayed on the FLC page and so the bot can properly close the nomination.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 16:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
While I do not necessarily oppose the nomination based on content, I also agree that there are still issues that need to be addressed, as I noted in the previous FLC.Generally, I do not outright oppose nominations that need improvement; I make a list of things that need to be improved, and the nominator works to address those comments. This is what I did (and other reviewers did as well) on the previous nomination; we added our comments for improvement and tried to clarify whenever there was confusion over our comments. However, since you closed that nomination, I'm not going to keep working to provide comments. In short: this list is not ready for featured list status, and because of the cycle of repeated nominations and withdrawals, I'm not going to keep commenting on nominations. I know this must feel bad to hear, but if you complete the peer review, reread comments in past nominations, and continue to make changes, I'd be more than happy to consider a nomination further down the road. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Now I am no longer interested in FL's nomination of
List of Coppa Italia finals. But do you think that the lack of data on the spectators of the oldest finals was a problem?
Dr
Salvus 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Did I forget to make some changes? Dr Salvus 22:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I had asked ChrisTheDude without receiving an answer. Now I have to give up because it will never be an FL and I don't want to return in the WP:ANI Dr Salvus 22:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You are right, but my biggest fear is that I will make a mistake, go back to the WP: ANI and be blocked. I am resigned. Dr Salvus 10:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I will take into consideration what has been said Dr Salvus 19:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just as a note - you should never close a discussion in which you have !voted at XfD - per WP:NACINV. In this case, I don't think it's worth overturning the close, but any further examples of this are likely to see you taken to ANI pretty quickly by someone. Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 07:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your close. What on earth made you think it was a good idea? If you try anything like that again you will be blocked, OK? Giant Snowman 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
GiantSnowman Ok, I'll learn from this error. I have already add this fact in my Thing not to do list. Dr Salvus 09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)