User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 27

Thanks

Thanks, Salvio, for entering in the MangoWong discussion. Can you rplease review the block on MW. He does raise something that is worth looking into. I do believe that the outside link shouldn't have been posted. Moreover, BsZ is being directly being named as a part in the dispute. So a warning coming from him wouldn't have looked as a warning to MW. Do you think it will help if BsZ is requested to not get involved. It seems he is already "involved" in this article. It may look more credible to the 'other side'. What to you think? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, that entire topic area is controversial and very sensitive, which may lead to heated discussions; I've tried to watch the situation from the sidelines, stepping in only when blatant violations of Wikipedia's rules occurred. This was one of those cases: that blog entry is ludicrous and noone should propagate the link to it, attempting to undermine someone else's credibility. That's a violation of Wikipedia's rules — or, at least, of their spirit — and, so, I stand by my block, especially because many editors, including MangoWong, had been warned multiple times that such a strategy is not kosher. I don't like blocking people, I believe that far too often blocks are used as clubs to win arguments; but there comes a point when no other solution can be employed to stop the mudslinging.

In this case, I have also examined the points MangoWong raises — more than once, by the way, as I read Talk:Kurmi daily — but that's not a matter of conduct, which is, therefore, best left to editorial discretion. As an editor, and not as an admin, I believe that citation needed tags do not belong in infoboxes so long as these only contain assertions that are cited in the article body, but that's a bit beyond the point. More in general, I believe that Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox and that all articles should comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Regarding BsZ, the fact that he has been one of the targets of that attack does not prevent him from acting as an uninvolved admin. If someone insulted me and, when blocked, complained that my block is invalid as I'm involved, as the target of the personal attack, the claim would not be considered seriously. To act differently would be too prone to abuse and gaming (you don't want me to act as an admin, come insult me). Furthermore, BsZ has not taken sides in the discussion, so, technically, he's still uninvolved. I was asked to recuse myself from acting as an admin in the area because I come from a western country and, therefore, I must share a western point of view regarding Kurmis and, as such, I cannot act in a neutral fashion... Quite frankly, I rejected that request because it was based on a rather shaky assumption; and, similarly, I do not really attach much credence to those claims regarding Sitush, BsZ and the others... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the situation in details. I see your point, and I agree that this block may be preventative and in fact may help prevent the situation from deteriorating further. This discussion looks like a marathon. I appreciate your efforts in being the 'guardian angel. It is very much appreciated. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I left your talk page with a good thought, and then I stumble on this. I think there is reason behind the 'involved' theory. I am posting the entire content copied from wiki:ANI.

"Yes, that's a major part of the problem, that it's not just the same people at each article. The first bunch I encountered when I started trying to help have mostly been blocked, which was relatively easy because their personal attacks, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry, were severe and blatant. But at the next article it will be different people (while we still have to keep our eyes peeled on articles we've moved on from), and they're getting less directly offensive and more wikilawyerish, and engaging in what seems like a war of attrition against people genuinely trying to get these articles into decent well-sourced shape - and the possibility that there is some off-wiki coordination going on has been raised by a few people. So I think the usual DR process is not really going to work - partly because it will take ages for each one and drastically slow things down, and partly because as soon as we get sanctions on one problematic editor or group, new ones will pop up and start all the way back at the beginning again. If anyone can suggest a good way to get some sort of protection in place for a generic set of articles against certain types of behavior by unspecified editors, I'm all ears - but if not, more admin eyes on the affected articles would be very much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)"

There are many assumptions here in the above statement. This doesn't give an impression of 'uninvolved'. The point of contention seems to be dealing with people who are engaging in a so called 'war' by bringing out facts and engaging in polite discussion. Wiki, in my opinion, would get self corrected. I am going to excuse myself from this article soon as I don't want to be labelled as 'caste warrior' or 'xenophobic', at the least. Such term are derogatory and may be best not used.. As you are the authority on wiki rules, I leave the interpretation to you. I really feel sorry to have stepped on a landmine ie article. What's your take? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a side note first, "caste warrior" is not meant as derogatory, in my opinion; yes, it's not really civil and should be avoided if one wants to appear neutral, but it is similar to "genre warrior" (people who edit war on articles about musician to change the genres). It merely refers to people who revert war/edit disruptively to get the article to state the truth as they see it. It may be a tad unkind, but it's not meant as derogatory (and, probably, might be chalked up to WP:SPADE)...

That said, BsZ's behaviour is not that of an involved admin, in my opinion; he's not saying he'll block everyone who disagrees with him. It's more the behaviour of an admin who has received a lot of flak for acting as an admin in a contentious area (and acting in a merely administrative capacity does not make a sysop involved) and has seen that some tendentious users (not everyone editing in that topic area!) have become more insidious as they act in a civil way, but are disruptive all the same, we have an essay regarding this: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, which contains they repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. His words are not a threat, not even an implied one: I read against certain types of behavior by unspecified editors to mean that he'd like to receive help from more uninvolved admins and editors against people who exploit Wikipedia's rules to slow down change and keep on soapboxing in a disruptive way, not as a way to say that he'd like to receive carte blanche to censor those articles. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts, Salvio, thanks - that is exactly what I meant. As for "caste warrior", it is a term I have used but I am now avoiding. All I really meant was someone who edits with an apparent battlefield mentality in order to promote one specific caste (and I also thought there was a little ironic humour in the term, seeing as most of the problematic editors have been trying to elevate their caste to Kshatriya, or warrior, status ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I know BsZ that you may not be 'involved' per se, but statements such as these:- 'problematic editors have been trying to elevate their caste to Kshatriya, or warrior'

may give an indication that you already believe that such editors, problematic as you describe them, are trying to 'elevate' their caste to Kshatriya status. This statement implies that you already believe these guys are 'not kshatriya'. Other thing that comes out staring is the belief that Kshatriyas are some super human and everyone wants to achieve it. Can it be that all these guys are really trying to communicate. It may be my interpretation, but I leave such interpretations to Salvio as he is a lawyer by profession, and as such he is in a much better state to understand implicit statements. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When someone repeatedly changes "Shudra" to "Kshatriya", then it really is just a statement of fact that they are elevating the state of the caste, and it is not "involved" to say so. And when they edit-war to do it, again it's not "involved" to make that observation (we have a pretty objective description of what constitutes edit-warring). When they do not provide sources to support their changes, again it is not "involved" to observe that. If someone makes ludicrously false allegations against me and others, and runs sockpuppets as confirmed by CheckUser to edit-war, it isn't "involved" to say that's problematic. Are people trying to communicate honestly? Yes, I think some are - I think you are, for example. But are some being dishonest and repeatedly breaking Wikipedia policies? Yes, blatantly so, and it is not "involved" to say so. WP:INVOLVED does not prohibit offering opinions about the behaviour of editors with respect to their adherence to, or breach of, Wikipedia's policies - if that were so, nobody could ever do any admin work -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Regrets, new to Wikipedia Re. article on Nicola Filippo

Good day Salvio, Regrets on making such a snare of the article I wrote. New to Wikipedia. I did not read the paramenters for identifying myself. I have now established an account and done some editiing with my name actual name Guy Briscoe instead of using cineartsproductions. I am an art enthusiast and follow the careers of of artist such as the late Ray Johnson, Nicola Filippo and Marcel Dzama. I was surprised no-one had written an article on Nicola so I thought I would have a go at it. Well it was a stumbling attempt and obviuosly created alot of work for you, my apologies. Since I am such a novice, suggestions? Feel rather weak in this field, inclusive of being unable to sort out how to add an image of Nicola. So any suggestions thoughts would be greatfully appreciated. best regards Guy Briscoe (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, your article was rather good! We encourage new users to be bold and you were, so that's good. Regarding the username issue, don't worry, it was nothing serious.

I'm now about to leave a welcome template on your talk page; it's useful because it contains links to a bunch of bits of info you could find very useful.

My only suggestion, for the moment, would be to familiarise yourself with markup. Regarding the addition of an image of Nicola, you should use [[File:Name of file.jpg]], but the image you link to must be on wiki (meaning you cannot link to a file on someone's blog, for instance) and there are some problems if the image is copyrighted (namely, it must meet these criteria) or else it may be deleted... That said, my personal suggestion would be to be bold and have fun. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Salvio!

I am new here and I work on an article about my school. Its a new school and I did my best to find the resources to support what I wrote but for the first time you deleted the article for being promotional. I asked some other volunteers to give feedback and I amde the necessarry changes as much as I can. Can you check my article and guide me for my future actions? Can I make my article a rea wikipedia article now? Its name is Bilkent Erzurum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aysinpir/Bilkent_Erzurum I guess this link will help. ıf I need to wait and improve more can you show me specific mistakes of mine because I get lost in all these previously written informations while writing the article. Can you please leave talkback on my page. Thank you! AYSINAysinpir (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the original version of the article was deleted because it was promotional, but there were also concerns regarding copyright violations, as the entire text seemed to be copied from various subpages on the institution's own site; if you recreate the article, please make sure you do not do that or your article will have to be deleted again per speedy deletion criterion G12, because Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material due to serious legal concerns.

That said, Wikipedia's articles should be informative and describe what reliable sources write about the various subjects, not pages about their mission, vision or values — which, by the way, I see you have already removed and that's very good! —. These belong in the about us section on their website and not on Wikipedia.

I've read the article again and I believe it's a bit too detailed (especially the part about the different curricula and the departments section would be removed as soon as the article hits mainspace, I fear as way too promotional... All in all, I'd suggest you trim it down a little, removing the parts which are still too promotional in nature. If you tackle these issue, I'd say, then, you could move your article to mainspace, making it a real article. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I made all ne neccessary changes on my article and I moved it to the main space. Is it okay now? I requested for a feedback too. I hope I can finally keep my article on mainspace. Then I will write the same article in Turkish or German. Is it possible? AYSINAysinpir (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla Red Panda

Can you give me a copy of the deleted Mozilla Red Panda redirect? (Please use {{talkback}}) 125.235.161.215 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

At the time I deleted it, it was just

{{db-redirtypo}}
#REDIRECT [[Firefox]]

Nothing more. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My request

Considering that you are a skilled admin, please, participate by answer (assign or deny) on my request for Rollback, because one admin said that he doesn't have enough experience to decide what to do in my case. Alex ^discussion 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:71.83.180.66

Curious as to why you removed my WP:AIV report as "inactionable". Is persistent addition of copyvio material not within the scope of AIV? – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that another admin had made a call on it [1] and, assuming he had examined the situation and come to the conclusion that it was a content dispute, I removed the report (along with some others). If you disagree, you can re-report the user, of course. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio is clearly not a content dispute. We remove copyvio material all the time, delete articles that are clear copyvios and block serial violators. So if I re-report, won't the bot just remove the report because it has already been "dealt with"? – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the bot only removes users who have been blocked; and I agree with you that blatant copyright violators are blocked. That said, Causa sui has just semi-protected the page, so I don't know how preventative a hypothetical block would be. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Check you e-mail inbox, I've sent you a message. Alex ^discussion 19:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just replied. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice re: ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F contains a diff of the user page for MangoWong which in turn contains a diff of a thread closure at the talk page of the India project, along with a comment regarding MW's opinion of that action.

I wouldn't usually bother playing a game of "Connections" to quite this level, and therefore would not usually bother notifying, but in this instance I thought it best to let you know because it relates to an administrative decision which you took. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. As soon as I can I'll take a look and chime in. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cieluza

Hi, as you closed this as "delete" and not "userfy", I believe pages listed in Special:Prefixindex/User:Bowser423/Cieluza should be deleted as part of the same MFD too. Best, StrPby (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and, therefore, I've jut zapped the various pages. Thanks for the kind note and cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SMS Billing Types

Thank you very much, you are the only administrator that has actually helped me even though i have asked for it countless times. The others just nominated my articles for deletion. You however gave me a suggestion for submitting it as a draft first which i have done and it was much appreciated so thank you!!! Kind Regards

You're most welcome. When you think the new article is ready and have received feedback, feel free to come back here and I'll help you move it to the article namespace, if you wish. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you would be able to check my article and tell me whether it is suitable to put live please its called User:K.h93/SMS Billing Types (in drafts bit of Wikipedia) kind regards :) if not still thank you  :) K.h93 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I've refrained from chiming in at WP:FEEDBACK because I believe it would be fairer to you to let a previously uninvolved editor check your article, since I fear I might be biased, having already deleted it once...

In my opinion, the page is still written in an unencyclopaedic way and certain statements seem promotional in nature, such as Its marker acceptance and growth shows no signs of it slowing down as more content and services are purchased by consumers via their mobile phones or the list of billing types... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! any help is help! ok where can i find administrators? Kind regards x

You don't need an admin to provide you with feedback, any experienced user will do. You've posted on the right noticeboard.

On an entirely unrelated note, I've read your userpage and, in my opinion, you're divulging a bit too much: you are quite identifiable from what you've written. Do you really feel comfortable with it? You can't know in advance who'll see your page. I don't want to scare you, but it might make you more vulnerable to harassment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, i will remove majority of it (now i've been made aware, i see what you mean!) thank you for all your help, its been very much appreciated and if i you need a good word.... you know my username :) Kind Regards

If you want, I can hide it even more, since it'll still be viewable, accessing the page history... That said, if you need anything, you're always welcome here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your file, File:Judiciary of Italy.jpg

your file.

To inform you, I moved the file to the right, to commons since its free media (according to you) Its better to give all wikimedia projects good images. it.wikipedia would like it, well, thanks for the photo and keep up the good work. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I had forgotten all about this file... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it and I think that this afternoon, I will png it. Well, I like that you put on text so that people know where is what. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro forma ANI notice

I've asked that the AFD for Tropang Hudas 13, an article that you speedied earlier today on request of the article creator, be reopened, since the article was almost immediately recreated and apparently isn't otherwise speedy-eligible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cirex

Regards; I have tried to re-create "Cirex" article with no success (I know you was one of them what I respect no hard feelings), I am here to ask if is possible, at least meanwhile I can find the sources for the artist that editors are asking, can you put "Cirex" a #REDIRECT to this page? -> Puertorican Rock Music Thanks! Mroxidizer1 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)MrOxidizer1

Phantomsteve has protected the page against recreation, which means that to create the redirect would require the use of admin privileges — namely, the ability to override protection — and would, therefore, not be the action of an editor, but that of an admin (and, by the way, if I created the redirect, I would make it incredibly easy even for an IP editor to recreate the article in question just as before, which is what Phantomsteve wanted to avoid — and, to be frank, I would have done the very same, had I been the deleting admin in this case —). So, I'm sorry, but I'd rather not do it: you should discuss the issue with Phantomsteve. Again, sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Salvio giuliano, I am looking for an adopter, I saw User:SoWhy and out of the two of you, I can't decide! Would you be willing to adopt me please along with SoWhy? -Onewhohelps (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if SoWhy, who's much more experienced than me, is ok with this, I'd be glad to adopt you. Just one small thing, though, like SoWhy I do not prepare lessons, courses or whatnot, I believe that the best way to help someone understand Wikipedia is to provide him with a person who can answer his questions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I am going to add an adopted box onto my user page, if that's OK? Is it OK to contact yourself by e-mail? -Onewhohelps (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's something that you feel would be best discussed privately, of course! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban for HumourThisthat2011

I am sorry to see that it has come to this. The matter is still under discussion, and clearly only 2 editors have asked for topic ban. I oppose it and Sitush, Qxywrian, MatthewVanitas are the ones who complained. So, why should this be a consensus? Anyways, things are decided on merit and not consensus. I request you to open the thread. I wished that WP roves me wrong, but now I am getting serious doubts.

I hope you will do something similar about the concerns I raised. This step seems a bit harsh. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion regarding the topic had been open for 53 hours — full site ban discussions usually last 24/48 hours and their consequences are far more serious — and nobody had commented on it in the last 16 hours when I closed it; furthermore, nobody was explicitly opposing the proposal (FuFoFuEd, Fowler&fowler, Athenean, Sitush, Gun Powder Ma, MatthewVanitas, Qwyrxian were all in favour and even MangoWong stated he was not opposing the proposal) and the length of the restriction was incredibly short (3 weeks). Taking all this into consideration, I considered that a consensus had emerged and that the topic ban could be imposed. So, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to lift the restriction. At the same time, however, you'll note I have not closed the entire thread, so as not to stifle further discussion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So all it takes to ban a user on Wikipedia are a few editors who have had a difference of opinion. If you look at the thread, Fowler&Fowler came around and gave his opinion that Sitush and MatthewVanitas are 'involved'. I consider Qwyrxian involved too. That leaves 3 editors. I already expressed my opinion by starting another discussion. Kindly review this decision. The bans should be based on merit and not based on affinity groups throwing their weight. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not all it takes, but in this case nobody expressly opposed the proposal and it was on one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages for over two days; had someone had cause to suspect that Thisthat2011 was being railroaded, they'd certainly have spoken up. Besides, involved editors can certainly express their opinions in ban discussion, and they will not be discounted; WP:INVOLVED only applies to admin actions. It's just up to the closing admin to determine how much weight to give to those opinions. Considering that you were the only one to oppose the ban (and even indirectly at that) and that even people sharing Thisthat2011's point of view were supporting (or not opposing, in one case) the restriction, I feel my closure was justified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I see the inherent contradiction in your statement. It definitely takes a weight group to get someone topic banned. Please let me know the 'merits' behind this. I have seen you as a sane voice, but I wish that I were banned from WP too. At least I won't have to enact justice. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)