User talk:Sallicio

Archived pages Archive 1 Archive 2

Archive 1 Archive 2

Welcome to my talk page! Please place new comments at the bottom of this page. I'll respond on this page to comments you write me, unless you ask otherwise. :) Thanks. --Sallicio

BUT SALLICIO... I'M A FRIEND OF HERS... I JUST WRITE ON THE ARTICLE WHAT I KNOW OF HER.... WHAT CAN OTHER RESOURCES DO I NEED ??FedeContreras (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey i need help... i make interesting articles but wikipedia want to erase them... and sometimes... i upload pictures that are mine and wikipedia said is corrupt !! can you help me please ? FedeContreras (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sallicio. You have asked for a Bulagrian translation of "Happy Editing". This could roughly be translated in "Приятно редактиране". If you need any help with other bulgarian phrases or words, please let me know. Regards, BloodIce (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fulltext should be:Здравейте! Казвам се Джеймс. Аз живях в Благоевград, България с моя баща (той беше професор в Американския университет там). Моля, кажете "Здравей" и приятно редактиране! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.120.148.211 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at my discussion page. Regards, BloodIce (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sallicio. Nice to see you back.  :) I have one suggestion about your signature, but feel free to take it or leave it.

When you type four tildes (~~~~) to add your username and a timestamp, you don't need to also type your username (Sallicio). I personally don't mind, but some Wikipedians might find it odd.

If you want to know more about the general guidelines regarding signatures, see Wikipedia:Signatures - that page's only drawback is that it is a rather large document. (I just noticed that, might fix it later. ;)

Anyways, let me know what you think! --Iamunknown 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your new signature looks good to me.  :)

One thing I would suggest, though, is to replace the TeX code (i.e. the <math>\color{Red} \oplus</math>) with a unicode character: ⊕ (or ⊕). Benefits: Shorter signature code (long signatures have been problematic in the past); Drawbacks: the character will not show up on all computers (such as where the computer lacks the requisite fonts, or where the browser is unicode-unaware), though I am unsure how many computers will be affected.

Also, Enigmaman is wise, so I would suggest that you listen to him too.  :)

Gah, sorry for my long posts! :P --Iamunknown 07:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your awarding me a barnstar is most appreciated! If you need anything..let me know. Best wishes!--MONGO 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...you deserved it!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sallicio, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too...I used to live in the Washington area and well remember this event..25 years ago now! Living in Nebraska, I rarely get to see their games no,w but when they are broadcast nationally, I try to set time aside to watch them.--MONGO 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been here for about six years. And the redskins are my team, but it's such a crap shoot with them...there's no telling who they'll win (or loose) against.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. :D Enigma ^msg! 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have some problem with the inclusion of Officer Salvatore's name in that article. I have posted on the talk page justifying it's inclusion, yet YOU seem to blindly revert as soon as you see his name. Not only did you do that twice without justifying yourself (No, saying WP:BPL isn't a justification, I even went through it and found the section on inclusion of names and it supports INCLUSION of his name.), no, not only did you do that, but you even removed the all the sources I added, the sourced section with FURTHER ALLEGATIONS against him, and basically all my work. I am once more adding my sourced work, as I consider your revert to be masked vandalism of the article. Next time, check the talk page. 64.230.5.184 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your message. Have you seen Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship? The determining factor is whether there is a consensus that a user can be trusted to know and uphold its policies and guidelines. Typically, editors commenting on an RfA will want to see evidence that the user is aware of the relevant policies and guidelines and that they have applied them in the past - or at least that mistakes have been learned from. When closing an RfA, it's unusual to get complete consensus, so bureaucrats customarily look for a high level of agreement. As a broad guideline, if more than around 75% of comments expressing support or opposition are in support, then consensus can probably be demonstrated; if less than 70% are in support, then consensus probably cannot be. For cases close to or in this "grey area", then it is particularly important to look through the comments to determine the strength and relevance of the support and opposition. In some cases, there may also be clear trends - for instance, an increase in opposition late on, once a particular action has been highlighted in the discussion. Warofdreams talk 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeedie. Thanks for the advice. I've removed it from my watchlist. I was a complete idiot not to check WP:CDB before I answered that! The only thing I'll say in my defense is that my connection was really wobbly at that point, and most wiki pages were taking ages to load, so I was only working from memory. All the best! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 

Sallicio. For your efforts in the 3rd WP:LE Forward, I award you your prizes, for completing section A3 you receive the projects highest award! Thank you for all your hard work, this has been the most successful forward so far. SGGH ^speak! 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I was very surprised that that worked out. "Eunice is a genus of worm?" In Family Eunicidae?? I thought it was a personal attack! Dlohcierekim 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over and agreed the content content was not beneficial to the encyclopedia. The article creator has not responded to the PROD, so I confirmed your request. [that's my first admin action btw!] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jdjohnson920 saying thanks for the help. Not sure if this is the correct way to send a message, but oh well. I'll learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjohnson920 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sallicio. You just place an {{db-spam}} tag on a article I just started, alleging it looks like an advertising spam. But it's not, really. I just added an item to the list of WebOS solutions and found out that there's not article related to ajaxwindows, so I wanted to create one. I believe this article needs to be expanded instead, and if it's going to be deleted, so the other items on the list. Please see WebOS for reference.

Could you possibly help me clean up some stuff that I don't know how to format on this article? Jdjohnson920 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making Wikipedia reliable. Rosant (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing my work. I have not investigated further involvement. Perhaps you can show me what would be involved. Mostly I just do copyediting and cleanup, some formatting and the like.SidP (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it is more trouble that it's worth for someone like me. Maybe something in the future. I appreciate your offer and will contact you if I change my mind.SidP (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kalisha Buckhanon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisha Buckhanon. Thank you. --MCB (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more particularly, the quote. The cartoon isn't an issue, it's on quite a few pages. The quote, however, may be more controversial, and it's only fair that I give you the background on where it came from. I first publicly wrote those words in a rather politically charged user RfC which went on to be an equally politically charged Arbitration Committee case. That case, and the quote, has linked me rather indelibly to a very talented but controversial editor. I've been around long enough to have established a bit of a reputation separate from Giano, but you might want to think about whether or not you wish people to perceive that you are linked to him. Risker (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Giano is (sounds like an extra from The Sopranos), but I will heed your warning. Good looking out!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is his best-known non-article writing. I think you'll see what I mean by controversial by the time you get to the end. Risker (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. I think wikipedians like him are the ones that keep the WP wheels going. (civil) Diversity in philosophy is the key to the success of this project!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading some stuff from Giano, actually. I got myself involved in reading a bunch of old RfAs, which eventually included a RfA of Majorly's, which included an allegation of sockpuppetry, which let to something being posted at WP:BN, which got a lot of input from Giano. I don't know the background here, but how did a cartoon link Sallicio to Giano? Enigma ^msg! 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the stuff about readers only caring if the info is correct. Absolutely correct. Enigma ^msg! 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he meant was that the quote is etched in wiki-infamy. (as a sidenote, I am less than 100 away from my 2K edit count...woo hoo!)--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 05:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for replacing the db-spam template on the The 'no-one ever joins my facebook group' group. article. My mistake - nice one for spotting it. Booglamay (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we all work together! cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Thanks very much. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 04:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is encyclopedic about them, unless they have been involved in notable events? DGG (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean county police departments? They are part of the governmental system (and also a part of a few WikiProjects such as WikiProject Law Enforcement and part of many categories). Some are more notable than others. But all are notable to some extent because of the basic criteria: verifiable references and third-party citations from local newspapers or other media outlets. I mostly write about Baltimore-DC area agencies making it very easy to verify notability (mostly because of the area's proximety to the nation's capital and the unusually high crime rates). However, some agencies such as Dorchester County Sheriff's Office (Maryland) on Maryland's eastern shore is not notable enough on its own, so I merged it into the county's parent article. I have done the same with some of the municipal departments that I have written about. I hope this is the answer you were looking for. By the way, what brought this up? Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

combination of newpages and afd. I don't by the way see any 3rd party refs yet on the charles county one, and, from trying to source a few in the nyc area,i'm skeptical that non trivial mentions can be found, except for ones that get into major scandals or t he like. DGG (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to delete some of the articles?--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 14:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sallicio...thanks for the note on my talk page...sorry for being such a noob. I've been asked to create an article for a major contributor to our industry and someone who gets searched quite a bit. It's a page similar to a colleague of his by the name of Sean Compton (also on Wiki). I'm trying my best to follow the rules, but now am feeling overwhelmed. In terms of citation, I'm adding this info direct from the horse's mouth, as it were (from Marc Chase himself). I'm not sure how to cite that, and feel like if I don't have the answers now, when my back is turned, this work will be gone.

Would love some guidance if you don't mind. I'm also happy to expand further, both on the reasons why he should be included, and my reasons for including the material I have.

Thanks in advance! Baldilocks (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No worries! It's actually quite simple! For an article to be accepted it needs a few things:

1. Verifable references (not MySpace, YouTube, etc)
2. Third-party citations for notability (e.g., mainstream media)
3. Clear, concise, and well-written format

• Another hint is this: When creating articles, place this tab,"{{construction}} at the top of page. It lets other editors know that you are still working on it, and it will should give you time to bring it up to wiki standards (some editors can be like hungry wolves with the speedy delete tabs.
• Another hint is this: Be careful not create original research. Even if you are an expert in the subject matter, you still need to follow #1 and #2 from above. The reason is simple...no one knows that you are an expert except for you! So this is why even is Mr. Chase is telling you all of this about himself, it is no good. Also be aware that wikipedia is not an advertising forum. Check out WP:NOT. It may seem a little overwhelming, but it doesn't take long to get the hang of it! I hope this answers some of your questions! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm curious...do other Wikipedia articles count as references? I will work on getting specific references for my other notes. Hopefully it will still be around when I can get them.  :-) Really appreciate the help. Baldilocks (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No, other wiki-articles don't count. :-( I removed the speedy header and specified that you were a new editor in the edit summary, so hopefully, that will give you some time to fix it before someone speedies it out of existance! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 03:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I hope to be my final question for a while...lol... When an accurate reference is made, may I remove the "citation needed" tag? Thanks. Baldilocks (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you can take the cn out! I'll create a references subsection so your refs can be placed there automatically! just use this format, "<ref>http://www.wikipedia.org/</ref>" when placing refs into articles! And as long as I am online, I'll answer questions! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sallicio,

I'm wondering how to rectify (and remove) the "This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2008)" notation to the O. George Dunn article. I've added references that point to the Internet Movie Database, the Turner Classic Movies Database, and also a family website which contains photocopies of documents. All of these contain materials that support the information in the article. Thank you very much for your help. --Respectfully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winslow Peck (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! All you have to do is edit the page and remove the {{unreferenced}} template at the top of the page! Cheers! --Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! --Jenmoa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.198.237.42 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, declined speedy as not English is not necessarily a speedy deletion criterion. Subject appears notable, see talk. Please AfD if you wish. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things following on from the above.

1. Leaving a message to a brand new editor with the header "Welcome to the English Wikipedia but please don't be a troll" merely because they created a non-english page as you did here? Exceedingly bitey - please don't do that again.
2. If you're going to replace speedy deletion tags which I (or, indeed, any other admin) remove, then I suggest you spend a bit more time reading WP:CSD. The first tag placed was G1 - nonsense, in the sense of gibberish. The tag itself states that it doesn't apply to articles which are in a language other than English. You then replaced it with {{db-foreign}} with the edit summary "This is the English Wiki". Not the right action unless you can also show which non-english wiki it is reproduced from, in which case you should have included it as a parameter in the speedy deletion tag. If it's simply that it's not in english, tag it with {{notenglish}} and, as has happened, it's been translated into English.

Act like you did in this instance (and I'm not saying it's typical of your actions, necessarily) but you run the risk of (i) scaring off new editors, and (ii) potentially valid and valuable content being deleted out of hand. _GB^T/C 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view; however, a reasonable and prudent person would consider what the editor did as "trollish" at the least. Why would someone come to the English wiki and write an entire article in Afrikaans (or Dutch or whatever language that was)? That is simply common sense. And, "Welcome to the English Wikipedia but please don't be a troll" clearly does not fall within WP:BITE. If you look at my history [ahem, save my first few weeks when I was learning how to associate in the wikisociety ;)], I am notorious for staying level-headed and guiding those who do trollish things (look at the few entries above). If you continue with what I wrote after the heading, I go on to say that if he/she needs anything, that he/she is free to contact me on my talk page, ending with a very light-hearted, "Cheers!" I have helped many new editors from your fellow biting administrators. Second point, the tag ,{{db-nonsense}}, would have failed the speedy, because a foreign language is obviously not nonsense, and my {{db-foreign}} was more accurate (even though both were wrong). As to your (ii) point, the editor could have been writing about how to make a stable cold fusion generator that would have benefited mankind for ages but it still would have violated WP:N. I can appreciate your point of view, but I disagree with most of it. Last point: I understand that you are still a relatively new administrator but comments like, "If you're going to replace speedy deletion tags which I (or, indeed, any other admin) remove then I suggest..." are a bit borderline of "do-what-I-say-because-I-am-an-admin" and is indicative of future abuse of the mop (not that you would ever do such a thing, but don't forget what Jimbo said about WP:DEAL). However, I am always open to new schools of thought and I will try to be more diligent in the future when placing speedies on new page articles and I appreciate you keeping me on my toes! Good looking out! Happy editing!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, just a quickie to reply. Whatever their motivations, your message failed to assume good faith - {{uw-create1}} or {{uw-create2}} would have done just the same thing, but without biting them. Yes, you said "Cheers", and offered your help, but all that came after calling them a troll and warning them that they may be blocked - a warning which doesn't crop up until you get to {{uw-create3}}, a template which actively assumes bad faith, incidentally.

The question wasn't about whether the article violated WP:N at all - without knowing what the article said, and without knowing that it was directly ported from another Wiki, then no-one is in any place to make any judgment call about that - now that the article has been translated we can draw conclusions as to whether or not the person gets over the bar of notability.

Finally I wasn't remotely trying to say "do what I say because I'm an admin" - more "this is where you're going wrong, and how you can avoid it in the future" - ie. read WP:CSD and take a little more care about your tagging. If my words came across another way then I happily and readily apologise. The wider point is, though, that if I, or other admins, are removing tags and not deleting the article, then not only does it mean we don't think the article is speediable under that tag, it almost certainly means we don't think it's speediable under any tags - as we can "shoot on sight" when speedily deleting articles we don't have to wait for someone to tag an article with a category that it fits - we can just delete it and fill in our criteria on the deletion form. By removing the tag and not deleting the page, it's an indicator that we don't feel the page can be speedily deleted under any of the criteria.

Oh, and if you want to compare notes on rocky starts on Wikipedia, mine's been deleted. A beautifully formatted, illustrated and perfectly cited article about a completely made up individual. It was deleted less than 2 minutes later, and I got the standard {{uw-create1}} template. ;-) _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with most of what you say, save a few points as follows:

1. {{uw-create3}} states will be blocked; I stated may be blocked (just like your statement to me of, "this is where you're going wrong..."). Secondly, the uw-create series is a guideline not an absolute.
2. The points you made on your second paragraph are spot on except you should replace "admin" with editor. There is nothing special about admin edits. Anyone (except for the author) can remove or replace a speedy tag off of an article. You seem to be rather well-intentioned (and correct on most points), but just congratulate your adminship a bit much for my taste. A bit of advise to prevent others from misunderstanding your advise...leave the (I am admin, hear me roar) bits out of the commentary. In fact, I wouldn't even mention it at all unless you absolutely must. Most people will go to your userpage anyway just to see to whom they are talking (and there they will see the mop or whatever you have stating your possession of administrative tools).

Other than that, I appreciate the advise and I will adjust my future edits accordingly! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post here. DHMO was talking about the Request for Arbitration. See this. You were talking about Request for Adminship, which by the way, would be a poor idea. MONGO had over 100 opposes on his last RfA and he'd have no chance at passing another one. Hope MONGO stays, but it doesn't look good. For future reference, RfAr refers to Requests for Arbitration at ArbCom. Enigma ^message Review 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I had multiple screens open and was monitoring two different situations and was typing too fast. Good looking out, though! :)--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 03:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Unfortunately, the Montessori name and method were never patented, so that anyone could use the name when opening a school. For instance, you could open the Sallicio Montessori school for Wiki lovers. That is why Maria Montessori herself created the Association Montessori Iternational, as an independent organization to accredit and certify schools so that parents within the community know that their children are receiving an authentic Montessori education. This is of the utmost importance. If there is any deception, it comes from misuse. Accreditation, therefore, is a rigorous and essential process that is conducted by an organization, independent of the particular school. Apart from a local newspaper clipping, which was referenced, the Association Montessori International is the only independent source of verification. Please advise. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamduke (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the deletion templates and replaced them with the {{construction}} template and started the clean up. Are you at the (***)***-6297 telephone number? If so, I will give you a call so we can fix this and make it fall within wiki-standards.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Your help is greatly appreciated. Yes, we can be reached at that number. Look forward to talking with you. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.198.61 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article not count as "spam" the tag says "an article created to promote some ...?" I'd like to know so that I am using the appropriate tags. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For {{db-spam}} to apply, the article needs to be blatant advertising. For example, "The McKinnon Worker is a great magazine. To order a year subscription call 555-1234 or go online to www.thisisaspamarticle.com". Otherwise we must assume good faith and just place the "fix-it" templates on the top of the article. I hope this clears it up for you! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So quoting the introduction "The McKinnon Worker is the world's best piece of writing ever created. It has often been labelled 'The Best Thing Since The Big Bang'. The newspaper/newsletter was founded by one Sir Linford Bennett, who's acheivements are infinite. Sir Linford, who is awesome is the editor of this creation and no doubt he could not have done it without the work of his friends." doesn't apply even though it promotes the magazine/newspaper/etc simply because it doesn't try to sell something. Okay. So is there a criteria I'm not yet aware of that covers vanity articles of this type? Or is it simply a matter of putting them all through AfD? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from on this, but it doesn't seem like it's trying to get you to buy something. If nothing else, it's just a vanity article. See WP:CSD. Although, it doesn't fit the criteria for Speedy deletion, it is an excellent candidate for an AfD as someone has already sent it there. Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 09:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I do believe they are completely notable because of the press links (and also because I was recently in Portland and they're a big deal there. Drewhamilton (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Here's a suggestion; find another article that is already in the wiki and merge it into that article. Sometimes subjects are notable, just not quite on their own yet. That way, people can still enjoy learning about the subject matter, but we don't have quasi-notable mini-articles springing up everywhere! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Mifter (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In hope my feedback in you editors review will be helpful, no problem. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sallicio. I've removed your CSd nomination for Roundel: The little eyes that never knew Light and opened an AfD for it instead. I don't believe it meets the criteria for CSD, and it may even be encyclopedic. 9Nak (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine...I placed a db on it because even the author eluded to the fact of its non-notability by stating that it was never published and had no notable mentions to it other than the fact that its author was notable (which, in itself, would fail WP:N. Anyway, cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote rm header; notability has already been debated and established.

Where? And if he is notable, then it needs to be put in the article, because as it reads now, he's not. LaraLove|Talk 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As the article was being created, an admin was guiding me through the process and it seemed to pass the test as can be seen here. --Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael A. Jackson (sheriff), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Jackson (sheriff). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LaraLove|Talk 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a template {{WikiProject Maryland/flag/animated}} using a commons image that could be used on the front page of the Maryland project. As you can see, I have configured it to fly behind the wiki-puzzle-world logo in the upper left portion of the screen. I will leave it there for a couple of days and invite your comments as to whether we should use it on our front page, or not.--«Marylandstater» ^«reply» 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave Support or Oppose comments here:

It's very unlikely. This isn't my real name, I only use it on Wiki and a few other forums. And I don't think I've ever been to Rota. Sorry. -- SiobhanHansa 10:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you edited the headquarters location of the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office from Largo to Upper Marlboro at the top of that page. However, in the first paragraph under History, that page still states that the headquarters moved in 2000 to Largo and remains there. From my quick "research", http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/JudicialBranch/Sheriff/ reports that the Office of the Sheriff is in Largo. Best regards. Spril4 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't worried about it, I am just not going to take that kind of ignorance and bigotry from someone without having something to say. I know it's a game; silence to him means victory. I won't give him the satisfaction. Thank you for your sympathy. It's easy to see that my comment had nothing to do with him. I meant that most people outside of the teenybopper culture care about Hilary Duff. I simply don't see why people would even be offended by her remarks, it's not like she's of any real importance. I could see Waldorfers being offended if it was Condoleeza Rice or Sarah Palin who made the remark.JaMikePA (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a guy who's been permanently blocked from Conservapedia three or four times, here's an explanation. You can do anything to the Obama article, provided it shows that Obama is an incompetent, America-hating, terrorist-loving Muslim. Anything else, you'll be permanently banned. They are not interested in fact, only slander. Ed blocked me once for suggesting some articles lacked references. Don't bother to point out WP policies to Ed, all he cares about is how much you hate them liberals. Go over to www.rationalwiki.com for more information about the absurdist website known as Conservapedia. Czolgolz (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on Ed's page, but let me add this now. Do not expect to be treated fairly or with respect at CP, that is not part of their modus operandi. They are solely interested in smearing liberals and preserving their own power base at CP. Do not expect to have a fulfilling experience at CP unless you are prepared to forget every ounce of common decency you have. Infantile insults and mockery are respected more than sensible argument. That is the way of conservapedia. Do check out Rationalwiki though, you might not agree with everything that goes on there, but at least its good for a laugh and its refreshing to find a wiki that doesn't take itself so seriously.--Dje123 (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the above comments are accurate and not only is Ed unlikely to help, he's also one of the reasons Conservapedia is what it is. If you still want to continue your Conservapedia career, contact sysops CPAdmin1 or Phillip J. Rayment, they're pretty much the only sysops that aren't complete jerks. LightFlare (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input! It's amazing the delusional world that they seem to live in. It's a shame, too; It could have been a really good outlet for another wiki-forum!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 16:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CP guy said wikipedia is a fraudulant site? Oh, that's rich.Czolgolz (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Marine and Brother! Not having been a Marine, I don't speak from personal experience about Marine advancements, just the scuttlebutt (a good nautical term) that I have heard from Marines that I have been stationed with. I see your point of view, however, and the transition from junior NCO (Sgt) to Senior NCO (SSgt) is probably a important advancement in any Marines career. From my own personal experience the advancement from Petty Officer First Class to Chief Petty Officer had to be one of the best days in my military career. Thanks for your contributions to the article "Chief Petty Officer"; I only hope I didn't screw anything up to much with my edit. I notice that many articles of a naval theme tend to leave out the Coast Guard perspective and I was only trying to show that there are other Chiefs out there besides Navy Chiefs. sign me a former Army Sergeant (and Specialist 5), Vietnam combat veteran and Retired Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer, (as well as PM of my Masonic Blue Lodge, Brother) Cuprum17 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! My wife just picked up Chief. She had her pinning ceremony a few weeks ago. I knew it was a big deal, but I didn't know how big until she was going through Induction. (I am actually getting raised to MM on November 4th!) Cheers, Brother!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, Marine. Regarding your edit of the article Chief Petty Officer...Bravo Zulu!(another naval term) I had almost forgotten about the discussion on deckplate leadership, but it looks as though you have the subject covered beautifully. Being retired now I don't get much facetime with the military life except for the occaisonal funeral detail for a Coast Guardsman that requests a military burial. Most burial details are handled by the Air Force or Army in the area I live in but if a Coast Guardsman's family requests a Coast Guard presence, I volunteer to present the flag to the family. It is an honor I have performed twice now. I need to keep my weight down as the Service Dress Bravo uniform is getting a tad snug in a few places. I would hate to have to purchase a new one to fit, but I would, just to keep up my responsibilities. Good to hear from you and keep up the good wiki-work as well as your Marine career and family life. Semper Fidelis and Semper Paratus. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your message to the Deacon. I'll add you to the list of rollbackers in a minute, but for the Maryland article, you can also undo all the changes by going to history and clicking on the last version you edited, e.g. this. Then click on the edit tab and save it with an edit summary. Rollback won't let you add an edit summary by default, so it is not so good for this kind of thing. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate talk page trickboxes. I always fall for them.

I removed rationalwiki basically because of this; it was decided a while ago that the list of wikis was to be restricted to only those wikis of note. That is to say, only internal, blue links. It's basically a combination of WP:NOT#LINKFARM and WP:SPAM (that is, so people would not use the page to advertise non-notable web pages). I have no problem with RationalWiki being added to the page, provided a permanent, blue, internal link can be used, which requires someone creating a page that would survive a deletion discussion. I believe the page was created before, but deleted or redirected, so I removed it from the list (and the link I removed was external).

I also don't really think links to internal sections of pages are worth linking to. In this case, it linked to a sub-section of Conservapedia where RW was mentioned in one sentence. That's not really enough for my mind. But if you or anyone else can dig up sources sufficient to clear WP:WEB and create the page, I'd be happy to add it myself. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay as a link for the following reasons:

• The list is a list of online wikis.
• RationalWiki is an online wiki.
• The fact that it does not fall within standards for a bluelink is moot because of the above reasons.

The addition of an external link (in itself) does not fall within WP:SPAM, if it is solely a link to the site. It does not promote the sale or advertisement of anything. If this were Encyclopedia Brittanica and there was a list of wikis, do you think they would not include it because it is not notable enough to hold an article of its own? I think that inclusion is reasonable. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin to it! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to include blue, internal links only was made on the talk page, and is applied to all wikis equally. If you review the talk page archive, this is the consensus decision made several times. If you would like rationalwiki to appear on the list, I suggest one of two options. First, create the article after ensuring it is notable (a quick google-troll suggests that this might be difficult, but print sources are allowable). Second, seek consensus on the list of wikis talk page that either the inclusion criteria should be expanded, or that an exception should be made for Rationalwiki. I don't think there is merit to the latter, and the former, while possibly difficult, would be a much better option for wikipedia (and having a soft spot for anti-creationism, if there is any defensible evidence of notability I certainly wouldn't nominate it for deletion). Based on the history of the list of wikis page, if you simply decide to re-add it, I think it would be removed by multiple editors.

As for your reasoning above, the lead of list of wikis does state "notable", which here means notable. You are welcome to try to change consensus, but it might be worth scanning the talk page archive to see why people think the list should be constrained. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waaaay too much trouble. Thanks!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand the sentiment. If you ever do notice a sustainable version of the page being created however, you won't get any opposition from me about adding it to the list. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I really care, but the headquarters of the Sheriff's Office is in Largo, the mailing address is in Upper Marlboro. I did provide the link and repeat it below.

Address
Prince George's County
Office Of The Sheriff
1601 McCormick Drive
Largo, MD 20774

Mailing Address
Office of the Sheriff for Prince George's County, MD
P.O. Box 548
Upper Marlboro, MD 20773-0548

Oh yeah, you asked about the patches. I have been collecting patches for over 20 years, so I own most of them. Others I have utilized images provided by other collectors. You may notice that from time to time I have used an older issue. That is because I do not have every one. I just wish I did. If you have any articles that you would like a patch photographed for, I'll do my best. If I don't own it, I may still be able to get an image. And thanks for the barnstar! SGT141 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know the Sheriff's Office has moved their headquarters to the new location in Upper Marlboro! The civil section and the domestic violence unit remain at the Largo station. The command staff and the rst of the Office has moved into the "Chysler Building" located on, incidently, Chrysler Way! Cheers (and as far as the barnstar, you've definately earned it)!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of November last year there were 1300 articles in the Md. Project
• At the end of November this year there were 4000 articles in the Md. Project
  

An increase of 2700 articles.

• At the end of November last year there were 7 featured articles in the Md. Project
• At the end of November this year there were 10 featured articles in the Md. Project
  

An increase of 3 articles.

• At the end of November last year there was 1 (one) A-class article in the Md. Project
• At the end of November this year there was 1 (one) A-class article in the Md. Project
  

An increase of 0 articles.

Just put that out there for the project's consideration.
--«Marylandstater» ^«reply» 03:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm workin' on it! I've added over 50 articles and 3 pictures (I just got around to figuring out how to upload images)!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love the pic of the three horses on the Prince George's County, Maryland page. I've been diligently working on adding entries for the various National Register of Historic Places listings in Maryland. If you are able to cruise around and get pics of south Prince George's County entries and those in Charles, St. Mary's, and Calvert counties it would really help out with the WP:NRHP effort. Just a suggestion ... let me know. Ted, from Adelphi--Pubdog (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill try to get down that way (I actually live in the oposite direction, north in AA) and get some pics. I'll put 'em in commons when I get them. Anyplace in particular you want?--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know, you seem to be tagging some articles that could be deleted anytime soon. Can't you just wait a few minutes before placing the tags? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If I am just tagging them, I feel that they fall within the standards for inclusion. If not, I will speedy them, or put them up for adoption in AfD! As far as the tagged articles, the tags themselves are mostly for the author (who are mostly brand new to WP) and guide them to fix the article. I will also do some research, wikify, and place references within the articles as well. Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 03:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Runway Disaster looks much better now thanks to you. --Herclop (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sallicio is there anything else you can add on to the page? i heard some stuff about the weather having to do with it. ty --Herclop (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it! That's how you learn to write in this wiki! Just make sure that you find verifiable, third-party references to verify the claims that you state. And you may want to add some stuff to the Nellis AFB Bombing Range. As it stands, it will probably get speedied (i.e., deleted)! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I noticed your comment on the talk page of an article I deleted and thought I'd suggest this:) You can try putting {{db-a2}} on them if you can't figure out what the article is saying. It's technically for articles that are transwikied to another language wikipedia, but (from my experience) most admins will get is meant by the tag and delete the article. I can't guarantee that you won't get yelled at for doing this, but no one ever said anything to me about it when I used to tag articles before I became an admin. Just a suggestion. Thingg^⊕⊗ 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I've tried that before and it just got speedy decline. The best that we can do is place the {{notenglish}} template on top. Bah! It's so annoying. Why come to the ENGLISH wiki with foreign language? There's hundreds of wikis out there. Go to their own! Hmmph.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, somebody asked if I was on RationalWiki and I said "...wut?" So I created the Sallicio account over there. :D No harm intended, of course. Finding you at the Guacimal AFD was just a coincidence (I swear). Oh, and happy holidays! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool! It was just wierd to see Sallicio as someone other than me... conversely it's also wierd to see a Master of Puppets that's not me, either! :) Merry Christmas!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I think you should wait a while longer until you acquire some more experience. This is not to say in any way that you are doing anything wrong (on the contrary, you are definitely headed firmly in the right direction), its just that, for better or worse, the informal 'RfA standards' seem to have risen to a fairly high level and I personally don't think you have enough experience as yet. One thing you can do is to avoid 'per above' type votes in AfDs and off-topic commenting in discussions. When you vote in an AfD, try to take the time to reason out why the article should be kept or deleted (maybe by voicing your opinion in an AfD that has few comments so far).

Another possible pitfall is your (apparent) association with Conservapedia and/or RationalWiki (I was not aware of the latter until just now). While this may or may not be an issue, both are, shall we say, extremely biased and I can pretty much guarantee you that actively contributing to either is not going to help you very much. (The former is fairly well-known here; I don't think the latter is as much, but this page is... disturbing to your RfA prospects if you are an active contributor there.) Also, I'm not trying in any way to tell you how to spend your time online as your opinions are just as valid as the rest of us, I'm just giving my honest opinion of how your off-wiki activities may affect a future RfA.

I do have to say you have demonstrated a very, very impressive learning rate here and I think you would possibly be ready by the end of January, though I'd have to look at your contribs again then. I know this probably isn't the answer you were looking for, but I really don't want you to go through an RfA and have it fail, especially because I'm fairly certain you would get enough supports to make it 'worth it' to go the full week. I can tell you from experience that going through a week of that and then falling short in the end is very discouraging. As hard as it will be, I think it would be in your best interest to wait a month or two and get some more experience before you undergo an RfA. New page patrolling and csd tagging is a good way to familiarize yourself with the criteria that must be met for an article to be included in Wikipedia (I assume based on your comment that that is your area of interest). If you do start new page (NP) patrolling in earnest, I would highly recommend you install Twinkle in your monobook.js file as it an extremely useful tool and makes NP patrolling much, much easier. (we're talking by lightyears here, though I do have to warn you it will not work in Internet Explorer if you use that browser) Another useful NP patrol script that I use occasionally is a slightly modified version of User:TheJosh's New Page Patroller (this works extremely well in tandem with Twinkle). Again, I want to strongly emphasize that you are doing a great job so far with your editing. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season, Sallicio, and a great rest of 2008! Cheers, Iamunknown 09:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sallicio. As far as I could tell, this article did not meet either G1 or A7 criteria for speedy deletion, so I have declined the speedy you requested. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is something you believe I have not taken into account. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for the response! I know it doesn't fit the criteria for {{db-g1}}. However, it does fit {{db-music}} because of the following:

1. We know it is about music.
2. I can read nothing that asserts notability.
   

Therefore: {{db-music}} applies. Case law is here at 08:36.
If I wrote the following as a newpage would it or would it not apply for g1 criteria?

• Dzeimc e hubav momche. Toi zshivya vuf gradut na blagoev.
  

or this:

• Vazshnah va krazshivniut krazhvoivna. Tya na goivnia varzshna.
  

Which one is gibberish? It takes massive amounts of administrative manhours to sift through the madness that flows into the newpages. There are much better things that administrators could be doing than to wait days for these asinine pages to flow through the bureacracy of the {{notenglish}} backlog. Unless the editor is bonafide retarded there is no reason for someone to come to this ENGLISH wiki and write articles in Japanese, Chinese, Farsi, Afrikaans, Serbo-croation, Mongoloian, or Klingon. It is a waste of admin resources (which there are precious little of). I spend 70% of my time sifting through the crap to sort it out for the admins to delete so the rest of humanity doesn't have to see the nonesense. Once I become an administrator, my first order of business is to propose a change of policy to speedy the hell out of the foreign-language articles. There are more ways than one to skin a cat. The article, by definition, should be speedied based on {{db-music}}. That's mah story and I'm stickin' to it! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 07:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this one does not meet criteria for CSD A7, because it is not about a person or a band—the article Paula Tsui is, but there is assertion of importance there. I didn't know that there was such a backlog at {{notenglish}}. But you might have a misunderstanding about the role of administrators; for example, you do not need to be an administrator to propose a change in policy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your logic. Articles written here in foreign languages are a pet peeve of mine. And about the policy change proposal, I know one doesn't have to be an admin, but it definately doesn't hurt and it carries more weight if the subject is proposed by a sysop. Back to my soapbox, pause to step up on top of the box, it is just common sense to write in English in the en.wikipedia.org website. grabs a beer and steps down--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 07:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sallicio. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted you to inform that I declined to delete Witch Trial (game), a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: games are not covered by A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or file them at articles for deletion. Regards SoWhy 15:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use a WP:PROD when it comes to non-controversial deletions that don't clearly qualify for speedy and which can't be easily fixed. However, if I do a speedy and no particular category obviously qualifies, I use html comments <!-- like this --> to explain the 2 or 3 criteria that come closest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Which speedydelete in particular were you referring to?--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them, except those in which the criteria is obvious. I saw you giving brownies to SoWhy (talk · contribs) over an A7 discussion and rather than butt in there I decided to post here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen of my log, 90% of the articles that I have placed tags on have been speedied. 5% of the others were in the foreign-language gray area (some admins agree with my stance, others do not). The remaining 5% was operator error (i.e., my fault). Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sallicio, thank you for helping me clean up the article on MILF. Please check out a new one on VPILF and feel free to edit. Bletchley (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've heard of it, but I think that VPILF would not qualify on its own as an article. Perhaps a subsection in MILF with some qualifying citations. Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey i need help... i make interesting articles but wikipedia want to erase them... and sometimes... i upload pictures that are mine and wikipedia said is corrupt !! can you help me please ? FedeContreras (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! First of all, let me say that we REALLY do appreciate your contributions! You just have to understand a few of our guidelines for articles to stay here:

1. The article has to be noteworthy. Meaning it has to have reliable, third-party (not MySpace, YouTube, blogs, etc) references. An example of a good reference would be something from CNN.com, Telemundo.com, or a local newspaper such as the New York Times.
2. The article must be well-written and avoid point-of-view wording.
3. The article must be easy to follow and understand.

I'll make a deal with you. If you can find me good references, place them in the article and I will rewrite it for you. From there, you can use it as a model for other articles. However, I would suggest that you try simple copyediting and wikification before attempting creation of another new article. If you need anything else, feel free to ask! Gracias!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let's forgot the deal... and erase the Silvia Valladares de Rodas Article ... ok i really i'm not interest on it anymore. Is obvious wikipedia doesn't want that i post articles this is absurb. i really like this editing at wikipedia... now my problem is how i can upload pictures at wikipedia commons... and i'm block because i didn'tfollow the policy of images.... so can you helpe me in that... I AUTHORIZED THAT THE Silvia Valladares de Rodas Article CAN BE ERASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i didn't find any resources cause i know her... so i need help can you unblock me ? Fckbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH... AND ALSOO...i'm FedeContrerasFckbaby (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) fckbabyFckbaby (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) and FedeContrerasFckbaby (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) are the same users !!!!!!!!! so doesn't matter where you can answer me[reply]

Hello! A few things:

1. Which username is blocked?
2. When uploading images that you, yourself have not created they must comply with Wikipedia's policy on uploading images. That is, unless the picture is in the public domain (meaning, free to use for any purpose unless prohibited by your local laws), you must make sure that the copyright holder allows his/her image to be used in the way that you are using it.

Also, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts. If Spanish is your first language, you may want to start off in the Spanish Wiki. I hope this helps you! If you need more help, please feel free to ask! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the barnstar! Happy editing! Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is preety strange! But I have been to very few countries! Although I hope to visit The others later on! Russian Luxembourger (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's really amazing! You must not have a car! lol! I've been to Luxembourg, and if you walk too far in any given direction you'll wind up in another country!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been sitting there for a while? A couple of hours at most. I had actually gone to eat having, I thought, put enough on to justify the page remaining until I got back! Can't help feeling you were being a little over zealous! The page was intended to form part of the subpages to List of civil parishes in England following a change in legislation allowing civil parishes to be formed in Greater London. There are none yet, as would be made clear once the page was completed, but they can be added as the situation changes over the ensuing months and years. It could be argued that the page should be left until a civil parish has been established. However, that leaves the list of counties in England incomplete (each other county has a page, the original national list having proven too long for a single page). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I apologize for the confusion. Perhaps next time you could place the {{construction}} template at the top of the page to avoid a misunderstanding. Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Sallicio! I am Basket of Puppies and brand new to editing Wikipedia. Thanks for your edits on the above article. I really like how you phrased things! Perhaps we can work together on this article? Thanks! Basket of Puppies (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! No problemo! Just bring in information and images and I will make it look pretty! Just make sure that the images conform to Wikipedia's policy on copy-written material and images)! After that you can use that page as a format to create more on yer own (give a person a fish feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him a lifetime and all that jazz)!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The way that you've copied a whole lot of tags into your sandbox means that it will crop up in lots of lists of pages - it might be helpful if you could "nowiki" it, or something? I've just removed the {{stub}} tag. PamD (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bout that!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. I hope you have a fine holiday season as well. --Tom (talk - email) 21:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Sallicio! Thanks so much for the sandbox and notes! Yeah, the article was certainly a fansite. I tried to edit it as much as I can so thanks for also stepping it. I will play with this sandbox feature. Thank you! Basket of Puppies 21:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance here is much appreciated. DGG (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've compiled my own list of malls in the US and I'm going to help you with this list. However, I would definitely say that you should have put a little more effort into the list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in to malls, so it doesn't matter to me if the article gets hammered. I was about to request a speedy on it after I found the but I got sidetracked. And by the way, as a general rule of thumb I try to put a little more effort in to most of what I do. Instead of simply tagging new articles, I clean them, wikify, and reference them as can be seen here, here, and here to name three of over 730 new articles patrolled. Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for being on top of the situation on reverting vandalism on the Chief Petty Officer article. Great work! Cuprum17 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Mah first one! ...guess I'll have to take the tumbleweeds off my userpage lol! Thanks!--It's me...Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss this on the article's talk page as this is not the first time the information has been added and removed. KnightLago (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the talk page, see here. KnightLago (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]