User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:War

Salvio, could you restore the selected anniversaries into my user space? We will use them with our project newsletter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Doing...—  Salvio giuliano 20:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I think I got them all. If I missed any, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Best. —  Salvio giuliano 20:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Salvio. Hope you are feeling better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey'

Hello,

This is regarding the deletion of the page 'Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey.' I had been monitoring the discussion page and there were not comments regarding the same over there. I also had a discussion with @Onel5969 who had nominated the page for deletion and asked if I could move the page again before it gets deleted if that was ever to happen.

Can you suggest me the path I can take here as I do not wish for my edit history to be lost. Hope you can help me out in this case.

thanks in advance.

Regards,

Jae Yumeko1 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yumeko1, I have restored the page, since it was only soft deleted. —  Salvio giuliano 07:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thank you so much! I can't seem to move the page though. Is that only possible for a title change? Yumeko1 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
That is strange, you should be able to move the page: it's not move protected and you are autoconfirmed, so you should have the technical ability.
If you want, I can move it myself for you, but it's not necessary. As I said, the deletion discussion only resulted in soft deletion, which means that the article can be undeleted on request, so you do not have to userfy it. Of course, the page can be nominated for deletion again – and I will be honest with you, I would not be surprised if it were, because Mr Dubey doesn't strike me as notable under Wikipedia's definition of the term –. —  Salvio giuliano 07:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
yeah well I do understand those terms and that is why I myself thought of moving it back and working upon those aspects as there still are chances for the article to get deleted again in the future. Moreover, I really am not able to move it and I have no idea why. I'd be grateful if you'd do that but is that the right way to go forth with this? Yumeko1 (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, it depends on what you want to do with the article once it is in your userspace. Userfication is supposed to be done to help you improve the article, find new sources etc., so that it can meet out policies and guidelines. Userspace is not supposed to be used as a web hosting service to host pages that look like articles. So userfication is not going to guarantee that the article won't be deleted or blanked. It will not as long as you reasonably appear to be working on it – although that doesn't necessarily means you need to be working on it continuously – per WP:STALEDRAFT.
So, basically, it depends on you. The offer to userfy is still valid, but the article can also be left in article space, where it is now. However, regardless of where the article is, you should be trying to find sources to prove Mr Dubey's notability. For that purpose, having the article in your userspace is probably better, in that it gives you more time to work on the page, but, as I said, it's entirely your choice. —  Salvio giuliano 08:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay noted. I might need some time to figure out what to do and will surely reach out to you once I've thought about it. Thank you so much for helping me out.
Hope you have a wonderful day ahead.
Regards,
Jae Yumeko1 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Joe Biden gaffes

i would like to request the deleted list of Joe Biden gaffes article be restored to my sandbox if possible. the deletion discussion was interesting, and suggestions were made that this material could be selectively merged into a couple of articles i did not know existed. if it is possible, would you also please restore its talk page too. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

.usarnamechoice,  Done and  Done. —  Salvio giuliano 07:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Remember the time you rejected my request here, so I'm wondering, have I now build a track record before I request again because I don't want to be rejected again. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 08:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Dancing Dollar, I actually meant something like edit for about three months and then re-request, since you've only been editing for a month. Then again, I have just reviewed a bunch of your contributions and haven't seen anything worrisome, so I'm granting you access to AWB. —  Salvio giuliano 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Under the Boardwalk

Hello. My name is ZX2006XZ.

I am a frequent editor, or at least was, on the article Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film). For context, Under the Boardwalk is an upcoming animated musical film from Paramount Animation, which has since been delayed from its original release date of July 22, 2022. Although we have information about the film, in terms of who's directing and producing (David Soren of Turbo and Captain Underpants is directing) and the studio that is animating it (that would be DNEG), we don't have that much information about its status despite the director giving updates on the film via Twitter, which is where most of the sources in the article came from.

Apparently, an abundance of primary sources is not allowed in a Wikipedia article, which is why Under the Boardwalk's article has since been deleted. I had recently requested an undeletion for the page, and the reason why is so I would edit the article as a draft. I didn't mention the draft part in the request, but by editing the article as a draft, I would make better changes to it by adding more reliable secondary sources.

However, I got a response that it could not be undeleted after a deletion consensus, but that if I wanted to get it restored, I could talk to the administrator who closed the discussion, which is you.

So I am asking if Under the Boardwalk's article can be restored so I can work on it as a draft. Thanks. ZX2006XZ (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

ZX2006XZ, this is an unusual case where I'm hesitant to undelete – whereas I usually draftify deleted articles on request –, because during the AfD there was opposition to draftification; for instance, a user said "[t]he citations are mostly not reliable, and of the ones that should be reliable, they are wrong because the information contained changed, it was speculative/intended future and then didn’t happen" and "[n]one of the current information is correct. If is is resurrected, every detail might be different, and will certainly need all new source" and another said "[i]f the sources are questionable, and they are, then the work that has been done has not been useful and there is no point to draftification"... Furthermore, there is a draft already at Draft:Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film)... So, as I said, I'm hesitant... —  Salvio giuliano 15:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for amendment of ANI remedy

I have an amendment request concerning the ANI remedy you imposed here. I have reviewed the procedures set out at WP:AC/P in the section Contentious Topics#Appeals and amendments, and the equivalent section of WP:BANNING, Review and reversal of bans#Arbitration enforcement bans, and both suggest that for an amendment/clarification the first step is to make a request to the administrator placing the sanction. My sense is that for an ammendment to a non-CT community sanction at AN, the first step in requesting an amendment to the close is the same. If you believe that the best place to start us another venue, such as WP:AN or WP:ARCA, please let me know.

Anyway, I am inspired to make my request by the policy language at WP:BMB: On very rare occasions, a limited exception may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion. I would like to request a limited exception to my GENSEX TBAN only, while the bludgeoning restriction would remain entirely in place. I would like to be able to edit two policy pages: MOS:BIO (notably, its Talk page) and MOS:GIDINFO (notably, the section "Discussion timeline"), including within the contentious topic of gender and sexuality.

On MOS:BIO, I have observed recent discussions that involve a "blue sky" aspect in terms of policy development on the former names of trans people; I have contributed constructively in prior discussions of these issues (and my participation on that topic was not cited by anyone to my knowledge as disruptive at ANI), and I would like to participate in this fundamental discussion - with a respectful tone, and within the framework of my anti-bludgeon restriction. On GIDINFO, the page history will show that I have had an important role in developing and gnoming that page, and I think some additional development and gnoming of that section would be beneficial to the project.

I do not believe that anything in the ANI discussion that led to your close would suggest that this "limited exception" would be contrary to the objectives of the sanction (i.e., preventing disruption) or contrary to the will of the community that you expressed in your close. And this is a one-time request for amendment to the close; I would not try to "chip away" at the TBAN with any other amendments - my contribution to P&G pages has been one of my consistent areas of quality contribution to Wikipedia (for a recent examole, see these non-GENSEX related discussions at MOS:BIO), and I feel that being able to comment judiciously on GENSEX discussions at that page would be an obvious benefit to the project. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this is not really a sanction imposed by me, rather it's a sanction imposed by the community. I simply closed the discussion and enacted the consensus emerging from it, so I don't think I am empowered to amend it as I would be if this was a CT sanction. So, I fear you will need to ask at WP:AN. I am sorry I can't be of more help here. —  Salvio giuliano 19:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think the other relevant provision would be at WP:BANNING under the section Review and reversal of bans#Appeals of bans imposed by the community, where the linked section of the 2011 ruling, linked as note 9, allows for two related criteria for appeal: (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad. It seems to me that the imposition of the sanction in areas, most prominently the MOS:BIO discussions of MOS:GENDERID, where no editor has expressed any concerns with my contributions, is indeed excessive or overbroad. If I were to file at WP:ARC or WP:ARCA, I would probably also raise the procedural question that the close was not successful in distinguishing between involved and uninvolved !votes, and that the closing statement that there was a very strong majority supporting a topic ban (almost twice as many as those opposing) does not, in fact, represent the disposition of !votes that were not using ANI as an additional forum to continue with a prior dispute.
Anyway, my preference is certainly not to file at one of those venues, and I believe that it is within the prerogative of any administrator enforcing a CTOP or community ban to amend it as needed to reflect the policy-based community consensus of the discussion that prompted it. If that is not your view, then I suppose I will have to consider ARC and ARCA, and probably seek advice from some Arb about which would be the relevant place for the application. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Newimpartial, I don't think ARCA would be the right place, because this is not a sanction imposed by ArbCom or by an administrator enforcing an ArbCom decision, but rather a community sanction, albeit in an area covered by CTOP; you could theoretically file a case request, if you wanted review by the committee, since ArbCom decided by motion to disband BASC and only take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an OversightBlock or a Checkuserblock; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions, but I'm not sure the requirements for a case are met. That's why I suggested asking the community at AN.
Of course, you can ask any arbitrator for advice. That said, I am confident that my close fairly represented the consensus of the community and don't think the sanction excessively broad, in that, generally, when you are topic banned from a specific area, the ban covers all edits related to that topic broadly construed, so it's not necessary to prove that your editing was disruptive in every aspect of the topic at hand, but merely that your conduct was sufficiently problematic in relation to it. Anyway, that doesn't matter, because, as I said, I don't believe I have the authority to tweak a community sanction after the fact. —  Salvio giuliano 20:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for your prompt response. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: Replying here as I think this will let you acknowledge it per WP:BANEX. For what it's worth, I would greatly value your input in the current discussion going on at WT:MOSBIO, and if you do make a limited request exemption at AN or any other venue I will fully support it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think the venue would be AN at this point, and I am considering whether to file. Additional input from other observers might be helpful to my decision. Newimpartial (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Following your recommendation, I have opened a discussion on this topic at AN. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Enquiry for notability guidelines for Doctors

Hello,

Hope you are doing well. I am writing to you as I would like to know if there are any specific guidelines that Wikipedia has for the notability of doctors? I did look up existing specific guidelines pages and though I did find one it is longer relevant or consensus. Is it acceptable if an individual qualifies any one of the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for the article to be considered wikipedia-worthy or for them to be considered notable? What other guidelines can one check out before writing about an individual in the field of medicine? Hope you can help me out with this.

Regards,

Jae Yumeko1 (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yumeko1, to my knowledge, there is no guideline concerning the notability of doctors per se; however, in addition to WP:GNG, there is WP:ANYBIO and, hypothetically, WP:NPROF, if the doctor in question is also an academic.
That said, if the person in question meets WP:GNG o WP:NPROF, then no further questions are likely to be asked, in that they are supposed to be notable; however, if WP:GNG is not met, but WP:ANYBIO is, then the person is likely to be notable, but not presumed to be and it's not guaranteed that an article about them would be kept. In this case, if notability is questioned, you should be able to explain why you think that the doctor is notable, relying not only on WP:ANYBIO.
These are the only applicable guidelines I can think of... —  Salvio giuliano 12:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay thank you so much. Yumeko1 (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Ticket#2023051110009561

Hello. You denied my request for IP exemption back at the end of May, and I sent a reply to the email, but I have not heard any response to that yet. I wanted to give you another update to let you know that one of the Stewards on Meta is prepared to give me the global exemption based on the newest information, provided I have gained local exemption first. If you can take the newest information into consideration, and also the fact that the meta stewards are willing to grant the exemption, I would appreciate it. I have seen the notice on your talk page, and I understand you may not be able to reply very soon. I hope your health will improve soon. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Huggums537, I actually read your reply, but, since I'm not inclined to change my mind, I left your ticket open to see if someone else was willing to grant you the permission. If you prefer to receive a definitive answer, I can close the ticket, but if I do, it'll be a decline. Otherwise, you can wait and see if someone else comes along. —  Salvio giuliano 20:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for responding, and thank you for leaving the ticket open for the opportunity to wait for someone else to take a look at it. I appreciate that very much. I would like to choose to wait and see if anyone else happens to come along and investigate, so please continue to leave the ticket open. Thanks again for your time. Huggums537 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Petition to restore Daniel Jeddman

I’ll kindly ask if you can review your decision of deleting the article in the name of a reputable figure called “Daniel Jeddman”. Or please what May have to be done appropriately to restore Blackan007 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Blackan007, I cannot unilaterally undelete the article, because it was deleted as a result of a community discussion. The consensus there, in my reading, was that Daniel Jeddman is not notable enough to qualify for inclusion. If you think my reading of the consensus was wrong, you can appeal my close at deletion review. That said, I am willing to draftify the article, provided that you do not move the article back unless it has successfully gone through WP:AFC. You can work on the draft, to improve it and to make sure that it show how and why Daniel Jeddman is notable, without fear of the page being deleted. However, please note that draft space is not meant for the indefinite inclusion of material found unsuitable to be kept in mainspace. —  Salvio giuliano 17:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I must say I’m most grateful for the kind response showed towards the subject “Daniel Jeddman” in discussion. The deletion was unfortunate and harsh but I believe with this opportunity to move to draft for a cleanup, chances of reinstating it to its rightful position could be honored in parity.
Should there be any thing to learn before I touch anything, please be my lecturer.
You’re a kind and fair person. Thank you, I appreciate your support. Blackan007 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Blackan007, I have draftified the article, you can find it at Draft:Daniel Jeddman. Please familiarise yourself with WP:GNG, but, in short, to demonstrate notability you need to show that Daniel Jeddman has received significant coverage, in reliable, third-party sources. After you have improved your draft, you can submit if for review by clicking on the "submit" button and a reviewer will come along and check the article. It may take some time, though, so please be patient. Please note that if you move the article back to mainspace without improvement, it will be eligible for speedy deletion. —  Salvio giuliano 19:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I cant thank you enough for the schooling and patience. I will definitely adhere to the rules to ensure the best for the subject “Daniel Jeddman”.
You have a wonderful day Salvio 👑 Blackan007 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_99&oldid=1162051638"