User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 5

Card of Thanks

Thank you for repairing the vandalism to my page. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 22:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One question - I don't see an option in Huggle to withdraw a warning after undoing one's own edit. Any ideas on that? P.S. I've visited your fine country, but I sure wouldn't want to drive a car in Napoli! :) kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, not even Italians would want to drive a car in Napoli. XD

Seriously, I don't think a warning can be withdrawn. When I warn in error, I go on the talk page of the user and manually remove said warning, with an edit summary in which I explain I was mistaken. The only problem is that it remains in the edit history and for the following day, Huggle still thinks the user was warned... The only way to avoid this is to avoid warning, when unsure we're dealing with vandalism (you can revert without warning) and to try to make sure we're not reverting a legit edit (however, I know: mistakes happen).

Sorry I wasn't more of help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine, you did help - you confirmed that what I was doing was appropriate. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 12:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Just to remind you how much I value your speedy and efficiency here in your anti vandal efforts. Thanks! Tommy2010 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Tommy2010 [message] 23:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame (Gary Barlow song)

I think it should be deleted cause it's not a Gary Barlow song, it's a Robbie Williams song, it should be Shame (Robbie Williams song) and not Shame (Gary Barlow song), plus there's already a page for that single, here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_(Gary_Barlow_%26_Robbie_Williams_song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.46.208 (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. However, in my opinion, a simple redirect will suffice. No need to delete the page.

Thanks for improving Wikipedia! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your kindness! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best copy-editor I ever knew

Is you. I know you are (this is what you said, but it doesn't seems you are) a lazy boy.. anyways I'm involved in a new articles about a Belarusian mathematician (I studied on one of his essays) and I need an hand by the only copyeditor I trust.. hehehe you know who is.. :p ( of course if he's not to busy..). Thankssssss, - Theirrulez (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery will get you everywhere, with me. :-p

Seriously, I'll take a look at it later on today; thanks for the vote of confidence. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 08:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Salvio! Thanks for copyediting! What appered to you a bit fuzzy is due to the fact that the text is partially automatically-translated from Russian. I will short it a little bit if you think it's better copy-editable and better readable. Anyways many many thankz! Ciao, - Theirrulez (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense (I mean the fact it was automatically translated). Anyway, yes, I think it tends to be a little too long and too "crufty". But, above all, it is completely unsourced. Do you have any RS? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited; it still needs work, however. Please, take a look to make sure I didn't remove anything important, thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 07:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Salvio. Now the sources of course. - Theirrulez (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		for the appreciable efforts in copy-editing Boris Demidovich! Theirrulez (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're way too kind; but I'm very grateful nonetheless! ;)

Thanks, Their (can I call you Their?)! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank spam!

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Hey when you first welcomed me to Wikipedia, you talked to me about possible vandalism revision tools. You also said that if I ever needed help/advice, I could ask you, so here I am. I just stumbled onto something weird in a few userpages. I'm not too experienced in this area of Wikipedia, so I didn't want to report it on any Administrators' noticeboards. User:Jstatler, User:Claystu, User:Elizflo, Special:Contributions/152.33.72.120, Special:Contributions/75.216.239.122 (only one edit, to User:Elizflo) Special:Contributions/152.33.73.114 (only one edit, also to User:Elizflo), Special:Contributions/174.111.9.216 (edits to User:Jstatler), and a few other IPs have been making a lot of edits to User:Jstatler, User:Claystu and User:Elizflo. More than half the time, the edits to the userpages are not done by the users themselves. User:Jstatler, User talk:Jstatler, User:Claystu and User:Elizflo are written like articles. Their subject matter is that of real Wikipedia articles, and there is no actual "userpage-type" content on the userpages, just as there is no talk content on User talk:Jstatler, which is written like a biographical article.

Is this normal for Wikipedia? The users have been editing each others' pages, but with no mention of permission or legitimate alternate accounts. Also, the users have few to no edits to the Article namespace. I'm thoroughly confused. Do you know what's going on? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look, just a few minutes. Don't run away just yet. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite weird indeed and I'm rather confused too. User:Jstatler and User talk:Jstatler seem to be sort of article drafts written by a newbie who doesn't know how to create a sandbox, so I think that's legit. Actually, Jstatler might be a username violation, in that it leads to believe that the user and Jennifer Coultas Statler are the same person, but that's beyond the point.

User:Elizflo explains why the page is there here. At least I assume it's like this: her teacher is making her practice making pages, so she copied the first page she stumbled upon. That's a wild guess, however.

User:Claystu might be a classmate of Elizflo's, that would justify the fact he edited her page and he too copied some random articles on his talk page. But this is an even wilder guess.

The various IP editors could be either people who don't realise they're not editing the mainspace articles or the kids themselves who forgot to login or their passwords altogether.

In a nutshell, that's not entirely normal. But I don't really think that's disruptive. They're not vandalising, writing attack pages or the like (the first one actually seems to be writing a decent article). However, if you wish, you may contact an admin, to ask him his opinion on whether these pages should be deleted. Hope I was of help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer inspection, User:Claystu seems to be some sort of a university project, Elizflo and others are taking part in. Think I'll be asking some questions... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Salvio! Being new-ish to this part of Wikipedia, I didn't want to make any idiotic blunders. Thank you again for your input; you've definitely been of help. Do you want me to extend a hand of assistance to the editors, or have you got it covered? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only wrote to Claytsu, because the others have not edited in a short while (actually, Claytsu hasn't either, but if that page is some sort of project headquarters, I hope it'll be noticed); help is always welcome, however!

By the way, I'm certain you've already been told this, but be WP:BOLD; even if you make mistakes, they can be easily fixed and we all learnt by trial and error (in my case, a lot of errors...) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All righty! Will do. Thanks for your advice. Let me know if there's any way I can return the favor. I know you're a more experienced editor and all, but still. If there's anything I can do, let me know. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I'm not really that experienced myself; anyway, at the moment I can't think of anything, but rest assured I'll find a way to exploit your expertise in the future. ;P Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 07:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just drop me a line:) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Sorry for giving the wrong editor the warning - I should have given it to the editor who was doing the vandalism. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm was done! We all make mistakes.

Keep up the good work: we badly need vandal fighters. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Hey just wanted to say congrats on getting reviewer privileges. Let me know how that goes! I applied, but I don't think I'll be granted the privileges because this account's still new-ish to Wikipedia (I am now cursing my earlier non-desire to get an account), but I totally understand that:) Let me know what using it is like though! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope a kind admin will set up a sandbox, to practise and get the feel of this tool, to avoid major foul-ups... I'll let you know what it feels like to review things.

Anyway, I'm certain that, in a very short while, you'll be granted rollback and reviewer privileges. You're doing just fine, according to my background check. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! This is going to sound extremely nerdy of me (but I'm a nerd, so why not? :]), but I'm looking forward to the day that I can get rollbacker/reviewer privileges : P

Good luck! : ) cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound like a cliché, but as far as I'm concerned, rollback is just a way to make it easier to revert vandalism (because it allows me to use Huggle, which is a wonderful instrument); I don't think I've ever used it per se. Rollback, actually, is somewhat dangerous, because, when you look at your own contributions, you can unwillingly revert yourself (I once did that... ^___^;;) or you can revert someone else by mistake, when you look at your own watchlist (this I haven't done yet, but there's a first time for everything).

Tomorrow/the day after, however, I'll see how this reviewer thing works. Thanks for wishing me good luck. Let's see if I can avoid getting myself in trouble. :P Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to work with Huggle——I've heard a lot of good things about it. 0.o How'd you roll yourself back? I've managed to accidentally roll non-vandal edits using Lupin because we pressed the button at the same time (that was embarrassing... Thank god they were understanding).

Oh wow I got reviewer privileges! Thanks for posting the notice on my talk, else I wouldn't've noticed it! : ) cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the self-reverting goes, I was checking my contributions, and I, rather stupidly I might add, clicked on the revert button. I didn't want to click anywhere on the page, but I guess there was a glitch in my mind-finger coordination...

And, by the way, we all make mistakes and sometimes revert some perfectly legit edits... It happens. It just shouldn't happen too often. ;)

Moreover, if you wish to get Huggle, you can apply to WP:PERM to get rollback rights. The admins there usually check if you have some 50 reverts, if you warn vandals and if you've ever reported any of them to WP:AIV. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to do that in the future. As soon as I get a computer that doesn't act like a five-year-old (complete with tantrums). ;]

Argh, they moved the start date of pending changes back one day! It was s'posed to start today!! Grr... Was looking forward to an interesting new feature when I got in from finals today. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. How did the finals go?

And don't worry: you (we)'ll have plenty of opportunities to have fun with the new tool... ;D Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I only had one final today and it was kinda awful. I have 3 total this semester, but I had seven last semester, one of which for a class I hadn't even taken. Somehow, I'm more stressed this time 'round... funny how that works. I've got English tomorrow and Chem Wednesday. :P --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (oh wow, I'm tired, I just tried to type !!!! insead of ~~~~...)[reply]

Help

Ciao. Vista la mia non buona conoscenza dell'inglese, potresti per cortesia dare un'occhiata a questa voce che sto preparando? Libero di correggere ciò che vuoi! Grazie!--Presbite (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(in Italian) Più che volentieri! Vedo che è una voce di media lunghezza; quindi, potrei metterci qualche giorno, ma sarò felice di occuparmene.

(in English) I'll gladly take a look at it! Since it's a somewhat long article, it may take a few days; however, I'll be happy to help! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuhuh... =D I see someone is getting more and more busy in copy-editing... - Theirrulez (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Perhaps I should thank you all for trying to cure me of my laziness... ;-p Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuhuahuah... =D oh modestly there's no need to thank me... just let me know.. is it working? Is your laziness going better? :P --Theirrulez (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Theirrulez, uhm... I don't know. I fear that if I answer yes, more copyediting will fall from the sky, because I'm no longer lazy; whereas, if I say no, more copyediting will fall from the sky, to help me more... So, I'll just hide behind a "no comment". ;-P

(in English) @Presbite.

Done with pleasure. As usual, check for major foul-ups. The article was already really well written and informative (in short, I like it!); at the moment, it just lacks reliable sources...

(in Italian) Fatto con piacere. Come al solito, controlla che non abbia fatto danni. L'articolo era già scritto molto bene ed era informativo (per farla breve, mi piace!); il solo problema è che, al momento, mancano, le reliable sources (fonti attendibili?). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanka Dineth

Could you please put your comment about this Article--Wipeouting (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done although I'm still a little bit hesitant... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ubuntu edit I made is true.

TRY UBUNTU. ITS FASTER THAN WINDOWS EXCEPT FOR WINDOWS 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.200.16 (talk • contribs)

Hey, dude. Not cool.

The message was important and I need you to restore the edits I made to the ubuntu page. Thanks, Computer Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.200.16 (talk • contribs)

Put my Ubuntu edit back

You took out my edit in the Ubuntu (Operating System) article. It was completely true, and you can check it by installing Wubi on your computer.

Thanks, Computer Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.200.16 (talk • contribs)

STOP IT!

Please sto[p not restoering my Ubuntu (operating system)article.

Thanks, Computer Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.200.16 (talk • contribs)

I've tried to explain this on your talk page:

I don't question that Ubuntu is faster than Windows; however, I'm afraid you shouldn't put it into the article like that, because it violates some of our policies; first of all, all articles should be written in a neutral way, the shouldn't contain original research, because it's not verifiable and, last but not least, Wikipedia should not be used to tell the world how awesome a product really is. I'm sorry! Feel free to put the remark back in the article, if you can find a reliable source backing up the claim, but make sure your tone is encyclopaedic.

Such an edit is simply not suitable for Wikipedia. I'm sorry. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Reverting my edits, no matter how vandally :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resitate (talk • contribs)

This was the edit. However, why do you not try to write an article about something you're interested in? I'm certain it would much more interesting than trying to vandalise a page, since with two clicks a vandal-fighter can undo everything you've done and warn you... ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Park Stadium

It is not a non-neutral point of view. Everyone is the world is reporting that it was a terrible decision. It merits inclusion in this article because it was a historical event that occurred in that stadium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.105.197 (talk • contribs)

To write:

This call has been accepted worldwide to be the worst call in the history of the World Cup.

violates WP:NPOV, unless you can find someone notable who holds that opinion and can provide a reliable source backing up your claim.

I may even concur with you that it was a terrible call, but, unless you can quote someone on that, it only remains our opinion and I'm afraid we're not notable enough to be quoted in a Wikipedia article. ;)

By the way, Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth and doesn't accept original research. All in all, it boils down to finding a reliable source that quotes someone maintaining that referee fouled up or, unfortunately, that claim can't be included in the article. I'm sorry. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2010

Hi there. I already made the explanation on the artcle about Isla Bank . I just recently creatd the article .. I would like to ask some help from you if you could further improve it .. By the way, here is their website http://www.islabank.com Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maven 1989 (talk • contribs)

I'll be glad to take a look. I'm not really that good at writing articles; however, I'll see what I can do.

First of all, however, I'll need to find a reliable source that provides significant coverage of Isla Bank (self-published works do not count), or it will fall short of our notability guidelines, namely Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Anyway, even if the article were deleted, you might ask an admin to userfy said article, to make it better, without having to worry about speedy deletions. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far, their website is the source I have..Have you seen it already? I'd like to ask a favor if you could place their logo on the article .. Their logo can also be found in their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maven 1989 (talk • contribs)

Follow-up: I've googled for "ISLA Bank" and "ISLA Bank" Thrift, but, aside from various lists of Filipino Banks and self-published or promotional material, I could find nothing that makes this Bank notable. I'm really sorry!

The only vague coverage it gets, as far as I could see, is here, but this is not really enough (in that it is not significant coverage, but rather a mention in passing).

And their site is not a good source: no matter what it says, if that's the only source, then your article will probably be deleted...

As far as the logo go, I feel uneasy putting it in the article, because, per Wikipedia:Logos, it must conform to the non-free content criteria, which I freely admit I don't feel comfortable around...

I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok .. Thank you so much for replying to my queries .. I just hope they won't delete it .. Come to think of it, other banks also has somewhat the same layout of their articles .. Try looking at list of banks in the philippines .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maven 1989 (talk • contribs)

I took a look at some of the other articles and each one has at least one reliable source other than the Bank's official site... I wish you your article won't be deleted.

However, I find it rather odd that the only two contribs of an user who registered a few minutes ago were to remove a speedy deletion template... ;)

On a more serious note, if you wish to sign your edits, please use ~~~~; I use {{unsigned}}, because I'm signing someone else's edit and if I used the four tildes I'd be signing them as my own. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Cymru.lass's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentor

Salvio, I appreciate you weighing in on the discussion about me, Nineteen Nightmares back at AN/I. I noticed your comment about a mentor and also that you are a copy editor, which is also one of my interests. Maybe you could help me become a copy editor here of some sort. The AfD section of the site is too contentious for me, unfortunately. I have four years experience editing a newspaper (circulation 33,000) and an English Literature degeee from San Francisco State ('90) to recommend me. What do you think? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

AfD discussions con sometimes become a little heated, you just should always keep your head. I'd be glad to try and be your mentor, although I'm more of a vandal-fighter and not really a copyeditor; however, I'm willing to give it a crack.

My idea of mentorship is that I keep an eye on what you do here and how you interact with other, so you might just see me coming out of the blue and start commenting positively or negatively on your behaviour and your contribution (if you prefer, we could do that in private, of course), always being here for you, should you need anything. Clearly, I'd try to make it constructive criticism, ;)

If you think this could help you, let me know and we'll take it from there. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Salvio. Thank you very much. I would like to do some vandal reversion edits, too. Where does one get started? Is there a vandal report page where we choose articles to work on, like AfD? Also, I am very thankful you will keep an eye on me and remind me to straighten up whenever necessary. Don't hesitate to tell it like it is, I can take it! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Well, I am really happy to hear this! I've done a little background check on you and you seem a very good contributor; it really would have been sad to lose you over some misunderstandings!

Anyway, if you wish to become a vandal fighter, you could install WP:LUPIN and WP:TWINKLE. You just have to paste a code in your monobook; no need to download anything. Then you run Lupin, which shows you all recent changes (or you can apply some filters, if you wish); when you see vandalism, you go to the page and rollback with Twinkle, warning the vandal. It's all extremely easy and intuitive.

And, as I've told you, you can always come here, if you need anything or are curious about something or if you just think I might be of assistance. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks, Salvio. I will check into it when I get off my self-imposed "on/off" Wikibreak. I'm not doing too much editing, just trying to make an attempt at responding to GregJackP's campaign over on Jimbo's Talk page. You might want to check a post I made there in response to all that has been said, and I hope that you will agree that it is not a personal attack, but an attempt at answering what this editor has been saying about me, Sarah and even Jimbo for the past few weeks, which generally I have ignored for the sake of civility. The article in question was deleted, so there isn't any discussion left anyway, except to keep yacking about nothing at this point. It would be nice if we could just put it to rest. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Dear Mr Giuliano

Please reconsider attempting to cover up the vandalism to the templates that ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has perpetrated. Thx. Captain of the Golden Hind (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to challenge the deletion of a page, you should approach the deleting the deleting admin on their talk page or take the matter to WP:deletion review; or, if you think that the admin did something wrong, after discussing it with her, you might also go to WP:ANI. Talk pages of deleted pages are speedy deletable and if I don't tag them someone else will... I'm sorry! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. My friend user:Noq has already tried with this admin but he simply won't listen to any sense. THat's why Ï created the pages -- to highlight this issue. Censoring me won't work, I'll just have to highlight it again until it is unvandalised. Captain of the Golden Hind (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- I also took it to WP:ANI but my complaint was swiftly removed from that page by another admin. This is a cover-up. Please do't be part of the cover-up. Captain of the Golden Hind (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I don't believe in conspiracies to hide the truth and, perhaps naively, I think that by talking all problems, usually, are solved. The admin deleted those pages as written by a blocked/banned user, in violation of their block/ban. Now, if you take my advice, I think you should tackle this issue. If you're actually a blocked/banned user, then the admin did the right thing and, if you wish to return, you should ask the community (or an admin or Arbcom) to lift your ban. If you're not, then it was an error in good faith...

Anyway, I'll stop tagging those pages for speedy deletion, but rest assured that someone else will and they'll be deleted.

I'm now going to take a look at the deleting admin's talk page to see what they were told and I'll be back momentarily. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Adding more content to wikipedia is worlds right. Yes,

I added a link to application which users can use to find massage parlors in USA. The current definition of article, does not talk about benefits of massage parlors. It compares them to brothels. So when I add something constructive, you remove it.

I am not sure, but I am not comfortable with it.

Regards Nitin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.71.250 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the addition of the link to the application, because I thought it fell within the purview of Wikipedia:El#Links normally to be avoided.

But apart from that, feel free to improve the article, that's always encouraged! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]