Misplaced Pages

User talk:Salvio giuliano: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:51, 2 May 2015 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 editsm →Please recuse: m← Previous edit Revision as of 08:59, 2 May 2015 edit undoSalvio giuliano (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators49,151 edits →Please recuse: noNext edit →
Line 83: Line 83:


- as well as your comments in our recent email exchange re the last block, make it clear that your ability to judge my behavior is compromised and that in fact you have probably already have made up your mind about me. ] (]) 05:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) - as well as your comments in our recent email exchange re the last block, make it clear that your ability to judge my behavior is compromised and that in fact you have probably already have made up your mind about me. ] (]) 05:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:No. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 08:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:59, 2 May 2015

Salvio giuliano is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.
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 by 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.

Finally, seeing as I am awfully forgetful lately, if you have asked me something either here or in private and I have not replied within a reasonable time, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

“ → Tornate all'antico e sarà un progresso.
("Let us turn to the past: that will be progress.") → C'est moi qui ai sauvé le brol.
It was I who saved the rubbish. ” — Today's Motto of the Day



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hope all is well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, hello there, HIAB. Thanks for the thought; happy to report all is quite well . Cheers. Salvio 09:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

want to create a page

Hi I want to create a page for my local business directory in Saudi Arabia called Daleeli. Could you please help me on this ?

Thanks!!

Well, first of all, I have to invite you to familiariase yourself with our guideline on COI editing, which you can find at WP:COI. The point is that while COI editing is not forbidden, it's strongldy discouraged. That said, you can still create the article – and I would help you –, but only if your business directory meets our requirements: to be included as a topic, something has to be notable, which, in wikijargon, means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If your local business directory does not meet this requirement, it's very probable that an article about it would end up deleted. Salvio 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Please recuse

I respectfully ask the you please recuse yourself from the case that has been requested regarding me.

I believe these edits -

  1. 09:40, 1 December 2014 I understand your concerns, but the most reasonable thing to do here, in my opinion, is to apply Occam's razor and conclude it was Lightbreather. (After an editor whom I'd had numerous disputes with advised that he thought I was not the IP whom you blocked me over for evasion.)
  2. 15:23, 13 December 2014 There is no gentle way of saying this, but, put simply, I don't believe her when she says she didn't do it; she has already lied before....
  3. 10:11, 14 December 2014 LB can say whatever she wants to protect her privacy; then again, if she lies, then she can't complain when people no longer consider her trustworthy, which is what happened here.
  4. 15:34, 14 December 2014 Let's recap: she violated the sock puppetry policy by editing logged out to avoid scrutiny, now claiming she was doing it to protect her privacy.... (emphasis mine)
  5. 10:26, 6 February 2015 I could support this only if Lightbreather was also topic banned from administrative noticeboards and restricted from requesting, suggesting, supporting, opposing, or even hinting at the possibility that another editor may be sanctioned, otherwise we are simply encouraging (and rewarding) vexatious litigations and forum shopping.
  6. 19:49, 26 February 2015 Well, Lightbreather *has* edited logged out in the past and, when asked about it, played dumb, so it's hardly unreasonable, under the circumstances, to wonder whether she's doing it again – though, as it turns out, in this case she was innocent. Anyway, regardless of any issues Lightbreather may have had with socking, her behaviour is, IMHO, generally disruptive: I consider her a vexatious litigant and a person who never drops the stick.
  7. 20:25, 26 February 2015 72.223.98.118 (talk) and 69.16.147.185 (talk) (Lightbreather denies having operated the latter, but I didn't believe her and still don't).
  8. 21:11, 26 February 2015 Well, now we can add personal attacks to your list of transgressions.
  9. 21:34, 26 February 2015 Yes, really. I commented on this personal attack because it's the one I saw.
  10. 20:09, 26 April 2015 On second thoughts, it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability. Either way, I believe a block is necessary. (After recent block for "outing" that was reversed.)

- as well as your comments in our recent email exchange re the last block, make it clear that your ability to judge my behavior is compromised and that in fact you have probably already have made up your mind about me. Lightbreather (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Salvio 08:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: