Please grant me the (IP block exemption) right, I use my paid VPN service, I've used it most of my edits on Meta & other WP. Nom I'm using Huggle just to sent you this message because I can't open a new section on your page talk. Thank you Salvio & have a good day. S∃AN(Hit)16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Salvio, thank you for your rapid response and assistance. I really appreciate that. Have a good day my friend. S∃AN(Hit)18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that comment was inappropriate and uncivil, but it was not a personal attack, as it was aimed at your closure and not at you personally — on a somewhat related note, I'd have closed the AfD as delete —. If you wish, I can drop a message on his talk page, but I'm not sure it would really help or just inflame things further (as his words definitely do not warrant a block). Probably, the best course of action would be to ignore it and shrug it off. SalvioLet's talk about it!08:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and, for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with you! My point is that WP:CIVILITY-related blocks are only issued if there's a pattern of incivility or if the comment was particularly egregious; this is a case where only a request to be more civil in future is appropriate, this would be a perfect issue for WP:WQA, if you wish to pursue it futher. Regarding the "lazy" bit, I agree that to say that your closure was lazy could be reasonably construed as a synecdochical way to imply that you're lazy, but it's not a clear personal attack (as it would have been had he said, for instance, "you're a lazy (or incompetent) closer"). SalvioLet's talk about it!08:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would be interested to know why you ignored the arguments for deletion based on failure to meet the criteria of WP:CORP, in favour of keep !votes based on nothing more than "it must be notable" although no significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that would have been a supervote which would have resulted in a faster-than-light overturn at WP:DRV...
The overwhelming consensus was in favour of keeping the article (only you and another editor, whose argument, by the way, was a mere WP:VAGUEWAVE, argued for deletion). Since my duty as a closing administrator consists in determining what the consensus emerging from a given discussion is, the only possible closure was a keep: all those who commented there but one did not accede to your argument.
I agree that a closing admin should also take into consideration the weight of the respective arguments and not simply count heads, but this must be kept within the bounds of a consensus-gauging process; when so many people argue that a given entity qualifies for inclusion, I cannot discount those !votes. I'm sorry. SalvioLet's talk about it!15:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Salvio, i'd like to draw your attention to some unconstructive editting that is again taking place in Nicosia. User:Seric2 is not being very cooperative and is constantly making highly-controversial edits such as this. This user is constantly starting edit-wars on the page without trying to establish consensus with other users. He's ONLY ever making controversial edits, deliberately trying to undermine the Greek character of the city while glorifying the turkish, and that's why we always have edit-wars. I NEVER saw him discuss on Nicosia talk page or his talk page, even though myself and other users have tried talking to him several times on User_talk:Seric2. Please could you have a look. Masri145 (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
