User talk:Salvio giuliano

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

Archives
Archives (Index) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 30 32 34 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 48 51 52 50 54 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, and thanks for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sæward of Essex. Your closure rationale is rather terse, so could you shed some extra light on why you found the merge !votes (which were based on a very plain reading of the well-established WP:NBIO guideline's WP:BIOSPECIAL section) not persuasive? The way I read the discussion, the !keep votes were not addressing that part of the guideline at all. Ljleppan (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short answer is that I felt that would have been a supervote.
The longer answer is that I did not simply close the discussion as keep, but rather as "keep without prejudice to merging", which, to me, means something different. I actually wondered whether I should close it as "no consensus between keep and merge", but thought that the former more accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion. I also asked myself whether I should relist the discussion, but thought that it would be unnecessary, considering that, rightly, there was no appetite for deletion and that merge discussions do not need an AfD. The thing is, the way I see it, both outcomes (keeping the article and merging it) could be argued for in a valid manner, because both outcomes relied on a valid reading of the relevant policy, since WP:BIOSPECIAL does not state that in cases of "failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria" we must "merge the article into a broader article providing context but rather that a merger is a possible outcome, [i]f neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article.
In this case, Sæward meets WP:ANYBIO and arguably WP:NPOL (or, at the very least, its spirit), so he is likely notable, although as you say, meeting those criteria does not necessarily guarantee an article. Meeting those criteria can be enough for inclusion provided a satisfying explanation is given why the subject qualifies for an article or, alternatively, can result in merging the material into a different article. As a closing administrator, it's not my place to decide whether the explanation that was provided is satisfying (or, in my opinion, I would be casting a supervote), rather I can only determine whether a reasonable editor may consider it satisfying, while its actual satisfyingness (which according to Wiktionary is word, apparently) is to be determined by those who take part in the discussion.
Which brings me back to my original point: both keeping the article and merging were acceptable results, both were in keeping with policy and, so, I could not discount any opinion or give some opinions less weight, which is why I closed it as a qualified keep, let's call it, because there was a consensus that the explanation given for keeping the article was satisfying and it was reasonable for commenters to consider it as such. Not to mention that one of the keep !voters explicitly said that he disagreed with the merge proposal, because he thought that the appropriate merge target was different, so even closing the discussion as merge would not have avoided a subsequent discussion to determine the target.
So, closing as keep without prejudice seemed the most appropriate result. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond in length, I suppose I read the keep without prejudice... as keep, but I guess you can have a merge discussion if you really want to (i.e. keep > merge) rather than as don't outright delete, figure out elsewhere whether to keep as-is or merge (i.e. keep ~ merge). Also, sorry for making you type all that out, I only noticed the notice at the top of the page now. Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ljleppan, don't worry. As an administrator I am expected to explain my decisions, so if I think I won't have the time or strength to explain myself, I will refrain from acting as an administrator. In this case, I thought my close was clear, but in hindsight I understand that it may not have been, so no need to apologise, especially in the light of the fact that the notice about my health has been there for a long time, since my health issues, unfortunately, are longstanding; then again, luckily they are not constant (even though they can be quite sudden), so it's there more as a way to say, if I don't respond, I am not ignoring you, rather than as a take it easy on me, because I am weak and frail. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, good to hear it's not as bad as it could be. In any case, thanks for your replies and I do hope you have a relaxing weekend ahead of you :) Ljleppan (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could I ask you to elaborate on why you protected The Fisherman (1931 film)? I'm not seeing any history of disruption in the edit history. Someone boldly redirected it, the author boldly reverted that, and then it went to AfD. The author didn't try to recreate it against consensus after that (and even if they had, presumably a block would be a more appropriate tool if the disruption is coming from only a single user?). I don't have any particular interest in this article, I was just skimming the ecp log to try to get a better understanding of the protection process. Colin M (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only reason I had was the one I gave: to prevent recreation, since the inexperienced user who created it in the first place didn't participate in the AfD and already reverted it once. Since the consensus was that the short film was not notable, the article should not be recreated unless there has been a new discussion or, alternatively, an experienced user has found enough reliable sources establishing its notability. After all, there is consensus that ECP can be used to prevent recreation of an article (that discussion applies to creation-protection, but the principle is the same and, so, the spirit of that rules applies, in my opinion). —  Salvio ^giuliano 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ECP says Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. I'm not seeing how any of that applies. It goes on to say Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred which kind of seems like what happened here. If you want to compare it to creation protection, WP:SALT says it's for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. This page was recreated only once, and that recreation was done in good faith and was not out-of-process. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want, you can unprotect the page, I'm not going to. —  Salvio ^giuliano 21:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I did. I'm disappointed we weren't able to reach consensus on the correct application of policy here though. Colin M (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accidentally reverted you on New York (state), my apologies. I need to get a confirmation box on those.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. I've been known to do the same occasionally.. Best. —  Salvio ^giuliano 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a tough one week battle to retain the page Daniel Jeddman. I noticed the focus was more on me on the deletion talk page for Daniel Jeddman rather than the du one time in question. I still don’t understand why the page was deleted without consideration or rescue.

Please Admin, if you would delete a page I’ll kindly ask you with all indulgence to rectify carefully the cause of the matter before execution.

Helping fish out notable articles and posts to update Daniel Jeddman would have been considerate. As far as I’m concerned, he’s notable. They’re why I took it upon myself to create this.

I admire your eloquence. Blackan007 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion focused, partially, on you, but also on the article.
Specifically, I found that the consensus was that the article was promotional and, much more importantly, that Daniel Jeddman did not qualify for inclusion, because it was perceived he was not notable enough, under Wikipedia's definition of notability. To simplify, a topic is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. A person may be important and notable in the real world, without being wiki-notable, which seems to be the case here.
You say that, before deleting a page, we should try to rectify the cause and that's what policy requires also; the idea is that deletion is not cleanup. However, when the main problem is that the subject of the article is not notable, it's impossible to correct that problem, in that correcting it would require the existence of reliable, third-party sources that give significant coverage to it and here it wasn't the case.
So, in short, I am sorry, but I am not going to undelete the article. If you wish, you can ask for review at deletion review or you can wait to see if more reliable, third-party sources emerge and, then, try to recreate the article; in that case, the article could be userfied, to allow you to work on it. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm a member of the Science Fiction project and was planning to weigh in on the U-Con deletion discussion after I got word it was nominated for deletion, but then my dad fell and broke his knee and, well, there went my week. And then you called it even though very few people participated in the discussion. I was surprised the discussion went the way it did. That article had been there for a long time with many editors and I just spent about an hour looking for independent references and found a whole bunch, so the assertions that there are none are just bizarre to me. It's an influential event where many nationally and internationally famous games have been play tested as part of their development.

The request for deletion review process instructions say to start by asking the admin who deleted the article to reconsider, so here I am. Obviously since the page is deleted I can't see what the state of the article was at the time of the deletion, but I would like to do so and have the chance to invite the rest of the Science Fiction Project members to improve the article.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Netmouse (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

I've found that happen several times before this. I'm not sure I'm as good as you are at letting go. I finally unsubscribed to the thread so at least I wasn't reminded all the time of how many users were posting comments as the thread literally unraveled. Interestingly enough, it was going in the "right" direction and then switched, slowly at first, but gathered steam with many admins changing their minds. It reminded me of some RfAs that have gone from support to oppose in a hurry. In my view, it was an "end justifies the means" argument and CC became the punching bag bogeyman.

I haven't been to Italy in a while, but I enjoyed the countryside, the food, and looking at all the pretty people. I've always found parts of Europe more livable than the US.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]