Hi Salvio, You recently deleted the article Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill, with the reason that there is already a page for this which is House of Prayer, Achill and I would like to kindly contest your decision. Firstly the correct name of this place is Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill" and secondly there has been a dispute by those 'running' the House of Prayer, Achill" page, that the information I have added about this is in some way 'hijacking' it and although written with due consideration to the policies of Wikipedia, they have repeatedly deleted the content. It appears that they may have an agenda on their article and do not wish for the balance of truth. Hence I would like to put this information under its factual name. I am not connected with the House of Prayer but have long had an interest in it and other sites of Marian Apparitions, hence my knowledge. Many thanks for your consideration and I await your decision. FluffyRug ( talk) 16:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
My advice to you is to start talking about the issue with the other editors as soon as your block expires, accepting whatever consensus emerges from the discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a newbie when it comes to page protection and blocking for vandalism. I saw the Galen Rowell request for semi - but I thought the point of semi was to cover when multiple IPs were vandalizing. If it is a single IP, I thought the preferred route is to block the IP. That said, the claim is that it is a school IP, so maybe I'm blocking too many users, and semi would be better. Your input requested.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
However, in this case, personally, I'd have blocked the IP; after all, the various students can still edit logged in... In general, I agree with you that semiprotection should be reserved for articles being disrupted by multiple editors, whereas, when we're dealing with just one or two vandals, a block is more appropriate... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In reference to your resolution HERE, the page in question was protected after the other editor, in this edit war, last edited it into his form -- giving that user the upperhand in the dispute while incapacitating me to "play on a level field" over this content dispute.
I perfectly understand your inability to act on my 3RR request - and in fact was not surprised by it. I am not writing about your resolution.
I am writing you because I would like to proceed to correcting the article into the form that includes the official external, unbiased, and third party citation fulfilling the reliable source policy (the dispute was one where I provided a content citation yet the other editor wanted content to read in his UNCITED fashion). And I cannot identify the protecting admin, as the protection event was not registered in the article's "History" or "Talk" pages. (Guidelines HERE state contacting the protecting admin is a pre-step to requesting an article be unprotected). I am requesting your opinion on how I can proceed; namely, How can I identify the protecting admin so I can communicate with him?
My basis is that, according to page protection policy, protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure, nor to privilege some users over others in content disputes. ( [1]) This may have been the case here, and I am ready to make my case in the approriate forum. So, again, I am here to get guidance on where I can find the protecting admin so I can address my questions to him. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Appears to have been vandalized by a botnet? Two similar, (sophisticated?) vandalism from two different IPs. Used a transparent image the size of the entire page which brings up autofellatio5.jpg when clicked on preventing easy reversion. Jim1138 ( talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You refused to help when an undeniably-problematic editor who is clearly edit warring was reported for vandalism. You stated that I "should have explained what he was doing wrong on his talk page" when the messages we have left on his Talk page do so. Surely edit-warring in the face of consensus while ignoring one of the principle guidelines underlying this project and doing so while willfully ignoring the attempts of other editors to communicate with you crosses the border into vandalism at some point, no?
In any case, I wanted to let you know how frustrating it is for editors who ask for help to instead receive a brief lecture about the merits of bureaucracy that doesn't even match the facts of the situation. This seems to be happening with greater frequency as time goes on and it's to the detriment of the project. ElKevbo ( talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this one - I was called to supper before I had time to be quite sure his film articles were nonsense. He'll want watching after his block. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a wacko who's been doing this for some time via anon IPs, who's all been targeting Claudia Black and Rango (2011 film). He's got quite a history. He died down for a time, but I see he's back with a vengeance. Thank you for being so considerate and pro-active! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity (and without revealing too much details), can you weight in on this issue? Cheers! -- Luk talk 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
One of his first edits after your final warning? Unreferenced information about a BLP. I despair. Giant Snowman 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And I wholeheartedly agree that the correction of outdated bits of info is valuable; though to consistently do so without providing sources is highly problematic.
To tell you the truth, I'd be inclined to play dumb and let this one edit slide... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you pleases explain why I have lack of experience? Thanks,-- Rubinkumar Talk 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Would this edit qualify for a level 4im warning then? I'm more used to the it.wiki system where I would immediately block an user for personal attacks such as that. -- Mark91 it's my world 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think we need to warn people that calling someone else names is not kosher here. And, entre nous, despite being an en.wiki admin, with regard to personal attacks, I follow it.wiki system...
.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
12:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Semi'd? Content dispute happens to be between an IP and a registered user. — Abhishek Talk 17:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been keeping track and am a major contributor to the Stop online piracy act article. The article has been recently overhauled which has cut down substantially on the rate of editing, there was one edit only on I think it was yesterday? The talkpage has been overhauled with a similar organizing treatment, and it has, well, it's not too bad. The third dynamic is the falling readership and interest in the topic. I would like the article unlocked to test out and see where it goes on vandalism, because it would be much reduced now. I personally aren't tolerant of vandalism, but I invariably attack the cause, not the symptom. It would help me to pinpoint the problem areas (probably in the body of the article). Thanks !! Penyulap talk 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding |this closure... given there was only a singular respondent, is it fair to say there is any kind of consensus? Wouldn't a relisting and/or a "no consensus to delete" be more appropriate? Not meaning to sound nit-picky; just an inquiry. Thanks! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sal, I can't help first apologising to you for my previous comment and also asking for your help. I have been blocked for a week. It was unfair and was a vendetta attitude. Over nothing. Please see User Talk:Djathinkimacowboy. I don't expect much, just a fresh pair of eyes- certainly do not want to get you in trouble.
So! The attitude was, "the way Wikipedia works" is someone posts a few ugly truths and they get blocked for a week! And let this be a clear statement: I won' be silenced unjustly. I took it when I was blocked 24 hours- not now Sal, I once read on here somewhere: "Administrators are nothing more than editors with a few extra buttons." Well, this proves it, they have buttons they do not deserve and I'm fed up with these administrative abuses.
Guess you beat me to it. Protection is the way to go. I do not understand the recent history--I thought all those editors with the exception of Suenahrme were on the same track. It's a bit like the blind leading the blind: I'm not sure if any of them have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policies and editing guidelines, and certainly some of them don't get it in the first place. What this article needs is some heavy hitters with content knowledge, or this protection will have to be ongoing. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I thank you for locking the page. Can you please revert the page before Suenahrme removed all of our changes. He was warned not to make any changes without consensus from all the editors but he went ahead and removed our writeup. And he is now telling us why he removed it. Can you please revert back the page and we can address his reasons for undoing our changes. Ali Wiki already offered an olive branch to talk about his concerns. But he remove other people changes. My comment to him here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=473268257&oldid=473266987
You should leave the article be for the moment and concentrate on solving this dispute following the steps indicated here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Does the afd result, redirect to Costa Concordia disaster, mean we can never start an article on Schettino? I was thinking of at least making a section in the main article about his role and comments. If that section gets big enough, we could think of spinning off some of it to Francesco Schettino. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 06:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That said, the issue of creating a section on Schettino in the main article is best discussed on the talk page. I can confirm that there is nothing in the AfD I closed preventing anyone from creating such a section. It's a content dispute that should be solved by consensus, as usual. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Salvio
I wonder if you can help me please. I have amended, corrected and re-written my biography on the poet Simon R Gladdish after I received the dreaded 'Cite Error' message. I have included 19 links and 1 reference but can't seem to make the reflist tag work so the reference is not visible when clicked on in preview. Is there some simple way I can rectify this? I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards from Riccardito ( talk) 14:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
==References== {{Reflist}}
Buongiorno da Campora San Giovanni,
ti scrivo anzituttto per salutarti ed augurarti un buon weekend qualora non ci dovessimo sentire prima. Oltre a questo ti scrivo per chiederti se molto gentilmente potresti portare agli onori Campora San Giovanni, mio borgo natio, bisogna di una leggera allungata e aggiornamento dati, io ho fatto del mio meglio nelle possibilità, adesso se vuoi aiutarmi sarò ben lieto di ricambiare la cortesia, con qualche altra traduzione in cambio. se puoi farlo fammi sapere appena puoi, grazie per tutto di vero cuore :)-- Lodewijk Vadacchino ( talk) 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
(in English) Howdy Luigi and a happy weekend to you too! A disclaimer first: let me be honest, I tend to be a
wikignome and to concentrate more on the behind-the-scene work than on the creation of content... Now, tell me what what you need.
I can't guarantee I'll be of much help, but I'll be glad to see what I can do.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio, You recently deleted the article Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill, with the reason that there is already a page for this which is House of Prayer, Achill and I would like to kindly contest your decision. Firstly the correct name of this place is Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill" and secondly there has been a dispute by those 'running' the House of Prayer, Achill" page, that the information I have added about this is in some way 'hijacking' it and although written with due consideration to the policies of Wikipedia, they have repeatedly deleted the content. It appears that they may have an agenda on their article and do not wish for the balance of truth. Hence I would like to put this information under its factual name. I am not connected with the House of Prayer but have long had an interest in it and other sites of Marian Apparitions, hence my knowledge. Many thanks for your consideration and I await your decision. FluffyRug ( talk) 16:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
My advice to you is to start talking about the issue with the other editors as soon as your block expires, accepting whatever consensus emerges from the discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a newbie when it comes to page protection and blocking for vandalism. I saw the Galen Rowell request for semi - but I thought the point of semi was to cover when multiple IPs were vandalizing. If it is a single IP, I thought the preferred route is to block the IP. That said, the claim is that it is a school IP, so maybe I'm blocking too many users, and semi would be better. Your input requested.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
However, in this case, personally, I'd have blocked the IP; after all, the various students can still edit logged in... In general, I agree with you that semiprotection should be reserved for articles being disrupted by multiple editors, whereas, when we're dealing with just one or two vandals, a block is more appropriate... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In reference to your resolution HERE, the page in question was protected after the other editor, in this edit war, last edited it into his form -- giving that user the upperhand in the dispute while incapacitating me to "play on a level field" over this content dispute.
I perfectly understand your inability to act on my 3RR request - and in fact was not surprised by it. I am not writing about your resolution.
I am writing you because I would like to proceed to correcting the article into the form that includes the official external, unbiased, and third party citation fulfilling the reliable source policy (the dispute was one where I provided a content citation yet the other editor wanted content to read in his UNCITED fashion). And I cannot identify the protecting admin, as the protection event was not registered in the article's "History" or "Talk" pages. (Guidelines HERE state contacting the protecting admin is a pre-step to requesting an article be unprotected). I am requesting your opinion on how I can proceed; namely, How can I identify the protecting admin so I can communicate with him?
My basis is that, according to page protection policy, protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure, nor to privilege some users over others in content disputes. ( [1]) This may have been the case here, and I am ready to make my case in the approriate forum. So, again, I am here to get guidance on where I can find the protecting admin so I can address my questions to him. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Appears to have been vandalized by a botnet? Two similar, (sophisticated?) vandalism from two different IPs. Used a transparent image the size of the entire page which brings up autofellatio5.jpg when clicked on preventing easy reversion. Jim1138 ( talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You refused to help when an undeniably-problematic editor who is clearly edit warring was reported for vandalism. You stated that I "should have explained what he was doing wrong on his talk page" when the messages we have left on his Talk page do so. Surely edit-warring in the face of consensus while ignoring one of the principle guidelines underlying this project and doing so while willfully ignoring the attempts of other editors to communicate with you crosses the border into vandalism at some point, no?
In any case, I wanted to let you know how frustrating it is for editors who ask for help to instead receive a brief lecture about the merits of bureaucracy that doesn't even match the facts of the situation. This seems to be happening with greater frequency as time goes on and it's to the detriment of the project. ElKevbo ( talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this one - I was called to supper before I had time to be quite sure his film articles were nonsense. He'll want watching after his block. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a wacko who's been doing this for some time via anon IPs, who's all been targeting Claudia Black and Rango (2011 film). He's got quite a history. He died down for a time, but I see he's back with a vengeance. Thank you for being so considerate and pro-active! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity (and without revealing too much details), can you weight in on this issue? Cheers! -- Luk talk 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
One of his first edits after your final warning? Unreferenced information about a BLP. I despair. Giant Snowman 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And I wholeheartedly agree that the correction of outdated bits of info is valuable; though to consistently do so without providing sources is highly problematic.
To tell you the truth, I'd be inclined to play dumb and let this one edit slide... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you pleases explain why I have lack of experience? Thanks,-- Rubinkumar Talk 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Would this edit qualify for a level 4im warning then? I'm more used to the it.wiki system where I would immediately block an user for personal attacks such as that. -- Mark91 it's my world 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think we need to warn people that calling someone else names is not kosher here. And, entre nous, despite being an en.wiki admin, with regard to personal attacks, I follow it.wiki system...
.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
12:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Semi'd? Content dispute happens to be between an IP and a registered user. — Abhishek Talk 17:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been keeping track and am a major contributor to the Stop online piracy act article. The article has been recently overhauled which has cut down substantially on the rate of editing, there was one edit only on I think it was yesterday? The talkpage has been overhauled with a similar organizing treatment, and it has, well, it's not too bad. The third dynamic is the falling readership and interest in the topic. I would like the article unlocked to test out and see where it goes on vandalism, because it would be much reduced now. I personally aren't tolerant of vandalism, but I invariably attack the cause, not the symptom. It would help me to pinpoint the problem areas (probably in the body of the article). Thanks !! Penyulap talk 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding |this closure... given there was only a singular respondent, is it fair to say there is any kind of consensus? Wouldn't a relisting and/or a "no consensus to delete" be more appropriate? Not meaning to sound nit-picky; just an inquiry. Thanks! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sal, I can't help first apologising to you for my previous comment and also asking for your help. I have been blocked for a week. It was unfair and was a vendetta attitude. Over nothing. Please see User Talk:Djathinkimacowboy. I don't expect much, just a fresh pair of eyes- certainly do not want to get you in trouble.
So! The attitude was, "the way Wikipedia works" is someone posts a few ugly truths and they get blocked for a week! And let this be a clear statement: I won' be silenced unjustly. I took it when I was blocked 24 hours- not now Sal, I once read on here somewhere: "Administrators are nothing more than editors with a few extra buttons." Well, this proves it, they have buttons they do not deserve and I'm fed up with these administrative abuses.
Guess you beat me to it. Protection is the way to go. I do not understand the recent history--I thought all those editors with the exception of Suenahrme were on the same track. It's a bit like the blind leading the blind: I'm not sure if any of them have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policies and editing guidelines, and certainly some of them don't get it in the first place. What this article needs is some heavy hitters with content knowledge, or this protection will have to be ongoing. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I thank you for locking the page. Can you please revert the page before Suenahrme removed all of our changes. He was warned not to make any changes without consensus from all the editors but he went ahead and removed our writeup. And he is now telling us why he removed it. Can you please revert back the page and we can address his reasons for undoing our changes. Ali Wiki already offered an olive branch to talk about his concerns. But he remove other people changes. My comment to him here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&action=historysubmit&diff=473268257&oldid=473266987
You should leave the article be for the moment and concentrate on solving this dispute following the steps indicated here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Does the afd result, redirect to Costa Concordia disaster, mean we can never start an article on Schettino? I was thinking of at least making a section in the main article about his role and comments. If that section gets big enough, we could think of spinning off some of it to Francesco Schettino. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 06:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That said, the issue of creating a section on Schettino in the main article is best discussed on the talk page. I can confirm that there is nothing in the AfD I closed preventing anyone from creating such a section. It's a content dispute that should be solved by consensus, as usual. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Salvio
I wonder if you can help me please. I have amended, corrected and re-written my biography on the poet Simon R Gladdish after I received the dreaded 'Cite Error' message. I have included 19 links and 1 reference but can't seem to make the reflist tag work so the reference is not visible when clicked on in preview. Is there some simple way I can rectify this? I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards from Riccardito ( talk) 14:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
==References== {{Reflist}}
Buongiorno da Campora San Giovanni,
ti scrivo anzituttto per salutarti ed augurarti un buon weekend qualora non ci dovessimo sentire prima. Oltre a questo ti scrivo per chiederti se molto gentilmente potresti portare agli onori Campora San Giovanni, mio borgo natio, bisogna di una leggera allungata e aggiornamento dati, io ho fatto del mio meglio nelle possibilità, adesso se vuoi aiutarmi sarò ben lieto di ricambiare la cortesia, con qualche altra traduzione in cambio. se puoi farlo fammi sapere appena puoi, grazie per tutto di vero cuore :)-- Lodewijk Vadacchino ( talk) 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
(in English) Howdy Luigi and a happy weekend to you too! A disclaimer first: let me be honest, I tend to be a
wikignome and to concentrate more on the behind-the-scene work than on the creation of content... Now, tell me what what you need.
I can't guarantee I'll be of much help, but I'll be glad to see what I can do.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)