User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 6

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB

I absolutely share your doubts, but without any evidence other than the fact they're a SPA editing to try to insert "Knox's innocence", I can't see anything other than an SPI would be rejected as fishing. Their first edit (to a MEDCAB page) is very fishy, but they could be ameatpuppet directed there off-wiki. Yes, their sudden re-emergence after Z's block is suspicious, but I'm not sure there's enough there for a checkuser to take it on. (For what it's worth, I doubt it's Z - though I could be wrong - that first statement at MEDCAB really does read like someone new directed to WP). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• We may possibly have another one [1]. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, thanks for interest. I agree that, unfortunately, there's too little evidence to support a claim that socking might be going on — that's why I asked for a second opinion, before boldly strutting over to SPI ;) —. Apart from keeping an eye on the two of them, what's the wisest course of action, in your opinion? Do we just wait and keep undoing their edits when they put OR and unsourced stuff in the article? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like someone beat us to the punch. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anything about templates?

Hey, Salvio, cymru.lass here again. I've messed up a coordinate template. I thought I knew how to work a template... Guess not. Here's what I typed:

{{coord|4|35|35|N|114|40|50|E|region:BN|type:city|display=title|format=dec}}

And here's what it returned:

Coordinates: 4°35′35″N 114°40′50″E extra parameters (dms format) in {{Coord}}

Help? Do you know anything about templates? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about {{coord|4|35|35|N|114|40|50|E|type:city_region:BN|display=title|format=dec}}?

Tell me if it works... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I ever mention you're awesome? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure, but feel free to do that whenever you feel like it: you'll get no argument from me. ;-P

Seriously, glad to have been of help (I trust it worked). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I only tell it as it is. ;D

Thank you soooo much! It worked : ) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very happy to hear that! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. I always read 'em... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Say have you ever run (ran? runned? Bad day grammar-wise) for adminship? You definitely have the contribs and niceness for that. I'd back you up in a flash. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC) So you do read them. Did you see the one from this edit? ;) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about grammar; I'm not English and way too often for my tastes, I make a series of howlers... ^__^;;

Seriously, though, I've thought about adminship from time to time, usually when I'd like to block a vandal, to stop him from edit warring, in order to get "penis" in an article. However, I've been here for six months, so I don't really know if I'm experienced enough and, above all, I don't have that much content creation under my belt. I'm about to seek further feedback on my contributions over on WP:ER; you're of course welcome to chime in, if you wish.

I had seen that edit summary, but only after I had pressed the save page button, so I moved on, although it made me chuckle... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not a native speaker? You speak really well. I can usually tell when someone isn't a native speaker, but you'd had me fooled ;D Hey I noticed you're into copyediting; why don't you give the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog elimination a try? I did the drive in May and it was pretty fun (not meaning to sound to WikiNerd-y) the signup is located here : ) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

• Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

• News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

• 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) 19:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bible verses

Following up on the noticeboard discussion, I think the best thing to do is start a new discussion on what the community thinks is best to do with pages like this. I've started a page at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010. It's been five years since any of this was discussed at all. Most of the people from back then are gone, and the community and its standards have also changed. Hopefully a fresh discussion can result in a resolution everyone will be happy with, and it'd be great to have your participation. - SimonP (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares

Salvio,

It appears that you are helping 19N, as I just saw his comments on Jimbo's page, and that he had struck them based on your comments. I appreciate the fact that he is listening to your advice, but I will not hesitate to take it back to AN/I if necessary. I would prefer to move on past that, and past the situation with Sarah, and spend my last few days on Wiki focusing on trying to get some form of assistance for editors that have a conflict with admins, or as someone else has suggested, some form of oversight body for the admins. In any case, thank you for toning him down. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, drop the stick, all of you. It doesn't help any of you to keep turning these events over in your mind. As you say, in this case Nineteen Nightmares retracted his edit, so no harm was done: this shows you that he is willing to take advice and to follow Wiki policies, which is very good!

As I've told him, I suggest you remove Jimbo's talk page from your watchlist — that's all stale now, in my opinion — and concentrate on your proposal, for which I wish you good luck. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

• News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Wikipedia, brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

• Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

• 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) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

108.3.232.56

108.3.232.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've reported it to WP:AIV. Hopefully someone's watching there and will put that fish on ice for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope so; to revert him is becoming a little boring. Thanks. ^_____^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. They dinged him for a week. That should cool his jets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I must remember to thank Materialscientist; he is a vandal-fighting and blocking machine! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And to follow up on your edit summary, as Elmer would say, "Good widdance to bad wubbish!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

May I automate the archival of your talk page?

If you've seen my talk page, you know that Cluebot III can archive talk pages. Would you like to have yours archived? T3h 1337 b0y 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would.

And I'd be extremely grateful if you did! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Murder of Meredith Kercher

You reverted one of my edits towards NPOV for the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I started a section about that edit on the talk page. Could you comment on it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Apart_from_the_knife Mdfst13 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'm a fan of WP:BRD. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

icarly

I just wanted to say though this blog is kind of considered a RS since it is coming straight from the creator of the show. I take care of it when i am auto confirmed then. in you opion, do you think that dan just counted 3 episodes at the time of when this was begin written and just didn't include that episode at the time.Cause now i am debating wheter to leave it since it was confirmed by show fax but it would trow off the production codes.Saylaveer (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, I'm rather ashamed to admit I know nothing of the show, so I can't help you, actually. I got on the talk page because there's a page where all edit requests are listed, not because I'm a fan of the show. I'm sorry. ^_^; Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just something I hope you might find useful, in future, however: when you're in doubt if a source is reliable, you can inquire about it on WP:RSN. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks anyway I will take care of it thenSaylaveer (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding referncing referencing

I'm undertaking an Editor review of you. I have one question I'd like to handle as a talk page question, rather than a comment in the review (mainly because there's a good chance I'm missing something and will look foolish.)

I'm looking at List of people executed by the Holy See. There seem to be quite a number of entries without references. Given the nature of the list, this seems like a troubling omission.

Examples:

• Gregorio Silvestri, hanged at Popolo, self-confessed conspirator (January 18, 1800).
• Antonio Felici, Gio. Antonio Marinucci and Antonio Russo, hanged at Ponte, convicted of robbery (January 20, 1800).
• Pietro Zanelli, hanged at Ponte, convicted of forgery of money (January 22, 1800).
• Francesco Gropaldi, hanged at Ponte, convicted of robbery (afternoon of January 22, 1800).
• Ottavio Cappello, hanged at Ponte, convicted of attempted armed revolution (January 29, 1800).
• Alessandro d'Andrea, hanged at Ponte, convicted of the theft of a watch (February 1, 1800).

Am I missing something?--SPhilbrickT 01:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks in advance!

Then, from what I can gather, the only source is this: sort of a diary written by the executioner himself (the list starts on page 162). Come to think of it, I'm definitely not sure it's reliable. ^__^;; Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

clarification of suggested addition to cannibus page

This is my first experience with Wikipedia, and I don't envision trying to become an editor or major contributor. From time to time I use Wikipedia and think it is an excellent resource, particularly when materials are documented.

I should have tried to be clear why I am suggesting to include information about Parke, Davis & Company cannibis products. I think this is relevant information to include under "Medical Uses," because it reliably demonstrates that cannabis was a mainstream drug that was routinely used by physicians. I say this because not only were there three forms (American, Indian, and the Tincture), but because cannabis was included as an active ingredient in at least half a dozen other Parke, Davis % Co. medicines. Importantly, cannabis was not classified as a "narcotic" requiring a Narcotic Order, which apparently applied only to opiates and their derivatives. I believe including information about cannabis as an ordinary drug used by physicians in a variety of ways, is important documentation that might well result in some of these earlier forms (and uses) of cannabis being resurrected. I think just smoking marijuana is a narrow use.

Thank you for considering these comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowzemz (talk • contribs)

I now see what you wanted done; but, as the template says, you should write "change A to B" in sentence C, providing a reliable source (which, by the way, you did), because the reviewing editor who comes along might be someone who, like me... Err, knows zilch of pharmacology... ^___^;;

If you wish to have someone else reviewing your proposed addition, however, you can go back to the article, open up your edit request and change {{tl|editsemiprotected}} to {{editsemiprotected}}, so that it will be listed once again and someone else will come along and, possibly, edit the article. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• 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) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Labor Pains

You know the semi protected edit request you granted a couple of hours ago for the "Labor Pains" article regarding the commerical reception section, some user reverted it, can you add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butthesilvermoon (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do it; another user, Kww (talk · contribs), holds the user I inserted the edit on behalf of is a banned editor, so their edits are not welcome here. If it turns out that user was not a sock, then I'll be happy to reinsert said edit. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But you can add it back if you think its best for wikipeida, since your an established editor and not a banned user, your allowed to add it back if you think that edit is a good faith edit.

Butthesilvermoon has been blocked as a sock of Brexx.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagined as much. ^_^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The 86.96 addresses are usually Brexx. Unfortunately, there are some technical obstacles about the way the UAE sets up its network that keeps us from blocking them.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, that's bad! I see. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I always appreciate being notified, and no, you aren't becoming any kind of problem. I think Jwfrancais is probably a different editor.—Kww(talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PROD contested

I have contested your PROD at this article, because it falls under A7, and should be speedily deleted. —mono 23:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem there; the page should be deleted, we both agree on that. ^__^

I thought that there was an assertion of minimal importance, so, being in doubt, I preferred to err on the side of caution. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for stepping in! Active Banana (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just hope I can be of help to solve the problem. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 17:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Nineteen Nightmares, Recurrence of Personal Attacks and Incivility

FYI. Also, your edit notice scared me! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks!

Then, ehm... LOL. What's so scary about it? ^___^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was coming by to notify you, but see you are already aware of it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PS, if you can just get him to leave me alone, I'll be happy. I have not sought him out, nor have I tracked his contributions, but I'm not willing to have him continually make insinuations or remarks about me either. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 07:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd echo the same. I didn't start any of this. I only responded (yes, in anger) after three days of repeated accusatory and rambing messages from him. He's a lose cannon. I'd be happy to never post another word about him if he'll agree to leave me alone. Or prerhaps a mutual pact not to EVER post about each other... Meanwhile out of a desire for civility WP:CIV I have removed all of my remarks about him on all pages. Dmartinaus • Talk 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I saw your removal and I'm quite happy of that. It was a step in the right direction, if you ask me.

Then, to be able to hammer out a deal by which you're to ignore each other would only be beneficial to all involved parties; let's see if we can achieve it, now. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. I'll agree to that in a heartbeat. Kudos to you if you can help get that arrangement agreed to on both sides. Thanks. (PS - is there a way to also actually BLOCK comments on each other's talk pages?) Dmartinaus • Talk 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't any technical means to do that. There can be a community sanction, called "interaction ban", but it's something very different and, again, it can't be enforced through technical means. If Nineteen Nightmares agrees to keep away from your talk page and not to interact with you (and vice versa), however, there will be no need for technically preventing him from writing on your talk page. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll give my absolute word that I will live up to it. I'm sure many people will be monitoring which is good. I think the mutual agreement also needs to include that he will not revert my edits on other pages (in other words we leave each other alone in all forms), which is what started all this to begin with. I'll agree to the same. Would love to get this wrapped up today if possible...and move on. Thanks again for your assistance. Dmartinaus • Talk 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea: to keep at an arm's length from each other, not reverting each other's edits and not talking to each other.

I'd be glad to wrap it up today, but Nineteen Nightmares hasn't edited since yesterday afternoon, before the ANI thread started; and, until he comes back and accepts this compromise, I fear this can't be considered resolved. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. You and I were also editing at the same time just now but I was writing this:

• Two Thoughts: 1) you might want to rather quickly discuss this and offer it up as a proposal (that I have already agreed to) on the ANI board since there is talk about it there as well. I'm happy to have a gentleman's agreement with others monitoring our sites. 2) I will agree also not to enter into the discussion on the AFI at all, but the AFI issue needs to move forward to whatever conclusion on its own. Closing the AFI discussion is not part of my proposed agreement. But I don't care one way or another about the outcome. Only that it reach its own conclusion. Dmartinaus • Talk 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you reach him by email?Dmartinaus • Talk 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this up on ANI only after Nineteen Nightmares had agreed to this, so as to mark the issue resolved (however, that's not strictly needed: you may not know this, but threads on ANI are automatically archived after 24 h with no edits). And, unfortunately, I don't have his emails to contact him more swiftly... I'm really sorry this is dragging on and I hope Nineteen Nightmares comes back online soon, so that we will all move on.

By the way, for what it's worth, I commend you on your wanting to accept this agreement. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll also agree to no contact and/or comments between 19N and myself if he is willing to do the same. By this I mean he is not to make any allegations/comments about me anywhere, and I'll not make any about him (reserving for both the right to take it to AN/I for enforcement, if that unfortunately becomes necessary). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Same for me, but he doesn't touch my edits (or me touch his) or post on ANY page about me -- including telling others about something he thinks I've done -- (and I'll do the same re him). I prefer that the ban run indef or forever. Savio or Greg, do you want to draw up such language perhaps and put on the AFI page for everyone to consider, or refine? Dmartinaus • Talk 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Would that not be kinda jumping the gun, at this stage? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Salvio - how are we coming with NN,man? Any luck? Any word? Any comments? Dmartinaus • Talk 03:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, sorry. As you can see, he hasn't edited since yesterday; and, sincerely, I understand him. This is an extremely stressful experience, so I commend his willing to take it easy and not strutting on ANI starting a WP:BATTLE. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I hope that is the case. A lot of time has been put into this and its very strange and disheartening that he has not uttered even a single word on the issue or the various proposals. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt out of assuming good faith, but this could also be his way of boycotting the whole discussion about him and stonewalling so as to never come to a mutual resolution. Believe me this is stressful for others, and it is "extremely stressful" for me, too. I want the personal attacks on me to stop. Also GregJackP does too. Unlike you, I don't understand "taking it easy" in this situation. I think we all have an obligation to get it resolved and move on, and the rest of us have been here in good faith working on the issue in a positive, productive manner. Truly we are not "strutting" but rather we are working through the issues. And he has had since July 7th to "take it easy." If we don't hear from him soon (say by Sunday afternoon) I'd like your permision to post these last three paragraphs and the proposed language on the AFI page (or for you to summarize it on the AFI page) and let the other editors decide what to do next. Dmartinaus • Talk 14:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I meant. I didn't and don't mean that you strutted over to ANI. It's just that I think it was good on Nineteen Nightmares' part not to come to ANI and start a flame, there. That's what I meant when I said I commend his taking it easy, not that you're not taking it easy.

I interpret his silence as a way to cool down, a way not to say anything he may in future regret. Of course, I'm assuming good faith.

By the way, I can certainly understand it's stressful for you too and I know you would just like to resolve this and move on, but, as I've told you, I can do very little. It's up to Nineteen Nightmares to agree to the terms set out and he should do it in his own reasonable time.

Anyway, personally, I'd give him till Tuesday afternoon (not to rush him too much); anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, you can post this entire conversation on ANI. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you can't do much to contol him, and perhaps he is cooling of. I'll post some of this over to the AFI to let everyone in on the conversation. Dmartinaus • Talk 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Salvio, since 19N apparently does not want to agree not to interact (see his post at the AN/I), I have poseted a request that the community impose an interaction ban between us. I appreciate that you tried to handle this in a cooperative way, and that you wanted to cut down on the drama, but I've had enough of his comments. If he won't agree to stop, then maybe the community will force him to stop. Again, thanks for your efforts. GregJackP Boomer! 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it. Thanks for telling me, however (and thanks for acknowledging my efforts). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made another attempt tonight at a proposal, incorporting Sarah's concerns, and editing them into the proposal as well. The end product seems very reasonable to me, but I'd like others to review it and offer any changes. Thanks. But I also am afraid that 19N will never agree to ANY proposal, in which case something will likely need to be done by the other editors as GregJackP is suggesting. Austex • Talk 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

NN Finally Speaks UP

Hoo boy, here we go again. FYI a list of comments correcting his false accusataions (because these same accustionshave been used used before) is in my Archive 1/ section 10 if anyone cares to read them. I am venting ONLY to you here, Salvio. Not on the AFI page. But here's another round of diparaging remarks and out-and-out untruths from NN. I could list them all but not sure that is helpful or what anyone wants to hear. But a good number of them were addressed days ago and are in my Archive1/section 10 if you are interested. He continues to see a great conspiracy that he now calls "Martin & Company," when I have no relation to GregjackP or Minor4th as can be easily gleaned from their diverse histories. I certainly think it best not to talk about this on the AFI, but here are just two of the falsehoods and exagerations as examples. Most of which come from his not actually reading any of the articles themselves or reading the coments back to him explaining them:

• Re the real estate project (called La Frontera) it's true an article on it was removed from Wikipedia. But a SHORT snippet was included in the Round Rock becuse of it's importance in the business section. It is 100% within Round Rock, Not "near Round Rock," and it is BY FAR the LARGEST project in Round Rock (not the second largeest). It is the "second largest" in the entire Austin 5-county metro area, hence it's includsion. Also I did not edit the snippet into the article. In the archive you can read how I put it out in the public for others to read, vett, and edit and to include or not incldude independently of me and on their own (as Sarah had instructed me to do). See my Archive1/Section 7 for how I clearly disclosed my CIO at length.

• Re "All of his contributions have been wholly self serving." Actually I think I have about 250 edits to actual articles so far since my block expired July 1, none of them related to me in any way shape or form. Bu tto actual Wikipedia "articles." But last I looked, most of NN's edits were challending people, starting AFI's, deletes, etc and almost none were edits to articles.

• Re his not having attacked anyone, I'll let GregJackP give you his examples. Unfortunately I erased probably 75% of his material from the last few days -- which were very disparaging and attacking in nature against me personall such as re my being in the development business for example (and he admitted he was anti-development and anti-growth), or that in PR I help Corportions to warp the minds of the common man, etc. He paints me as a money-grubbing low life. I'll be glad to try and go back and recover this material is posible, if you'd desire.

How would you advise me to proceed? To just shut up. I hate to see his falsehoods go unanswered, but then again I'm not sure that helps my case by enflaming the situation. 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. The rational part of me suggests that you let go. No good can come from your replying to him: it would start another heated discussion. You both know you have opposite opinions. This can only escalate until someone disengages.

That's why I'd advise you not to reply. But, at the same time, my emotional part tells me it's very hard. As I've told you, I don't know. It's easy for an uninvolved person to say if I were you, I'd drop this. It's much, much harder when you're the one being told not to answer to what you perceive as insults.

If you want to take my advice, don't reply. Just let the thread run its course. Now they're discussing an interaction ban (I say they, because I intend to recuse myself from !voting). Just see what happens: if this ban is approved, then you'll no longer have anything to do with Nineteen Nightmares.

The only thing I'm sure of, right now, is that I'm downhearted... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your candid advice. I'm downhearted too. It was the last thing I expected him to do. What he wrote is not only false, but can easily be proven false which would make him look foolish. But my bringing it up will bring on the wrath of Sarah and Deskana etc. So I am going to just sit still. While the answers to much of this is in my archives, I'm not sure anyone will ever know that or find it. I struck through the comments I made to you above. Even though they are to you, I think they are best left out of the conversation for now. I guess we'll see what happens. I just hope this doesn't turn AGAINST me from editors thinking what he says it true. Because it most certainly is NOT true as youhave read above. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

PS - Am I allowed to vote on the ban (like GregJackP did), or should I not do so regardless?Dmartinaus • Talk 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're all allowed to !vote; however, restrictions are only imposed if there's enough consensus of uninvolved editors. So, yes, you can !vote and your opinion will be taken into consideration by the admin who'll close the thread, but since you're all involved, your !votes will be a little less convincing compared to those who are not involved in the dispute (if I've made myself clear — English is not my mother tongue). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you make perfect sense. I'll wait awhile and see. I see NN just voted oppose so you have two "involved" editors (NN and GergJack) cancelling each other out. I wish you would re-consider your decision not to vote. You have a lot to add and are highly thought of. Dmartinaus • Talk 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio - I feel like I HAVE to put this somewhere. I'll take it down if you prefer. But this seems the logical place to put it so at least it's been said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE RE NN STATEMENT 10 JULY ON THE AFI PAGE:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

For the record the things NN said on the AFI today are simply not true, and they can be refuted in their entirety (other than the fact that I was blocked for SPI whichis entirely true). I'm not sure doing so and refuting them one by one will serve any purpose, but many of these are old accusations that were previously adressed and refuted by me. They are out-and-out falsehoods. FYI they were previously addressed on my Archive 1/ Sections 10 and 11 for anyone that cares to take a look. The issue about edits to the Round Rock article (I made no CIOedits!) are addressed in my Archives1 / Section 7. This is a most disheartening turn of events and response from NN. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Salvio - I truly do not know what to do. To shut up and take it, or to point out the absurdity and absolutely inaccurate things he says. Sigh! It's hard to be accused of so many things and not even speak up. But that would only bring the wrath and comdenation of other editors. What is one to do????? Dmartinaus • Talk 03:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)