I've noticed you've nominated a few articles for GA & FL that don't seem to meet the requirements. Before attempting to nominate any more articles for GA and FL, please can you read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria (particularly the section on what cannot be a GA), and the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. You may also like to look at examples of GAs and FLs on football topics, there is a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Featured content of all football related GAs and FLs. In short, list articles cannot be GAs- they can only reach FL- and articles with only a small amount of text content (excluding the tables) will not be considered to have broad and comprehensive coverage, and so will fail GA or FL. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits are indeed concerning. Creating an article which (based on current consensus at the ongoing AFD discussion) is going to be deleted and immediately submitting it to GAN/FLC shows you fail to understand both notability requirements and article content requirements. Please note that competency is required and if you do not slow down and start listening to and speaking with other editors about your conduct, you will no doubt end up under some kind of restriction shortly. GiantSnowman 11:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw that you submitted this at WP:GAN, for consideration as a good article. Please be aware that list articles do not qualify for good articles. You can try WP:FLC for featured lists but please be aware that the sourcing is way below the standard required. Please also note WP:RS and that other wikis are not considered to be reliable sources and should never be used as a reference. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus I'm pretty sure I couldn't have been clearer yesterday, but I'll repeat myself: lists cannot be good articles. This is another warning: please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria properly before nominating anything else to GA or FL. And look at similar articles that have passed GA or FL. All of your nominations have been way short of reaching what is a very high standard for articles. If you keep nominating articles incorrectly, people will get fed up, and you'll get yourself into trouble- either blocked or topic banned from creating GA nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I’m not an admin, I saw your request for rollback. Per JJMC89, you have no anti-vandalism experience, and most of your reverts were either bad ones or reverting your own ones. For rollback, you need to make good reverts. Please read Wikipedia:Rollback for more info. Regards, -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at 2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia. You may not remove ACTIVE afd notices when a discussion is taking place. CUPIDICAE💕 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:Hi. Sorry I made a little confusion with myself. I didn't want to vandalize. Please delete the page Draft:2019-20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia created by mistake today to move after the page 2019-20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia to draftspace (page created on 9 February 2020). Dr Salvus (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for being wrong. Dr Salvus (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I promise not to do it again Dr Salvus (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Coppa Italia trophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

RunningTiger123 I think I was perhaps a little distracted... I'm very sorry. I apologize. You can delete the page. I made an error in good faith. I do not do it again. Sorry. I apologize. You can delete the page. I made an error in good faith. I do not do it again. But I read that GettyImages's photos are legal...

I think the block is excessive because I have always made edits in good faith and remember that: "Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum" Dr Salvus (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To explain: One copyright violation does not lead to a ban (generally speaking), but doing it again may lead to a ban. Copyright violations are no laughing matter, so Wikipedia has to be strict about it. Please learn from this and do not do it again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Next time I promise of be more careful in these things. Unfortunately, I'm not very experienced in these things. Next time I will ask in the Help Desk. Dr Salvus (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dr Salvus, in February you posted at Talk:Cemetery of San Fernando/GA1 that you supported promoting Cemetery of San Fernando to good article status. For good articles, only one reviewer is required to approve an article's nomination, provided that the articles fulfils the good article criteria. Reviewers should follow the instructions at WP:GAREVIEW while conducting their assessment. Will you be reviewing this article, or can another editor review it? Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this user is going to do that GA, I doubt they've read WP:GAREVIEW properly. I would say that any other uninvolved ediotr should take up that GA review. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, withdrawing the featured list candidate, and then re-nominating it a few days later- as you have now down twice- it not helpful or constructive. It gives the impression that you're trying to hide the comments from the last review, without necessarily addressing them. Why couldn't you have just left the old review open, rather than "withdrawing" it and then creating a new one. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I withdrawn the candidate and then re-nominating the page because I thought to have immediately resolved the problems that prevented the page from being named an FL. Dr_Salvus (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, on the basis of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:UBX/Male chauvinist and the inappropriate edit to Nikkimaria user page (diff) alone, you face imminent sanctions for WP:CIR problems of a provocational nature. You must slow down. Continuing to engage in advanced processes and/or userpage cruft is almost certain to end up badly, because you clearly lack the competence to do so at this time. There are 6 million articles on the project that are not GA/FA/userpages, so, best to focus on contributing there, cautiously, because you've used up pretty much all the goodwill that is extended to newcomers. Thank you in advance for your attention. 14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. But remember that I don't vandalize. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, okay, but you should remember that WP:VAND is far from the only WP:DE parameter, and that it was never invoked, by anyone at any time, I'm pretty sure (certainly not by me). El_C 14:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: But I would like to understand why there is a controversy about me? It looks like I'm a vandal but I'm not. I fell into depression because of this controversy. I don't want do distruptive edits. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, the matter concerns competence (WP:CIR). No need to feel distressed. So long as you're able to follow my recommendations, things are likely to work out fine. All that other stuff will be forgotten, eventually, as just some growing pains. No malice on your part has been inferred, by anyone at any time, I'm pretty sure (certainly not by me). ←See what I did there? El_C 15:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus. I see you are getting many messages about following procedures here on English WP, and I hope you will try to understand them, take them to heart, and slow down so that you can comply.

My current example is your apparent wish to request a 2nd peer review (PR) for List of Coppa Italia finals. There is a process for that, clearly described at WP:PR/Instructions, but you did not follow those steps. Instead, you manually changed the {{Peer review}} template on the list's Talk page (reverted by me), and then manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2. You should know two things about that page:

1. Nobody will ever notice it, because you created it out of the regular process. The people who do peer reviews will never discover its existence.
2. I have nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was an error and does nobody any good.

I hope you can find a mentor to help you in your work here, and that you will pay closer attention to the procedural directions offered on English Wikipedia. I wonder why you don't focus more on Italian Wikipedia, where perhaps there's not so much of a language barrier. In any case, good luck, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And I have just now reverted your continued attempts to circumvent the established PR procedures. Please read the above and adjust your actions accordingly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to cancel the peer review? I want the page to be an FL. If you think he got it wrong then fix the page. I can't fix it now because I'm using my cell pho Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)ne

I don't want to "cancel" any peer review. If you want to request a peer review, then I ask you to do it correctly. That's all. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And again: I have reverted your manual change to the Talk page and tagged your manually created "review" page (which isn't one) for deletion. Did you follow the WP:PR/Instructions? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Because you deleted John's CSD out of process and have repeatedly re-created that page despite guidance, I will block you from that page the next time you re-create it. Please stop and listen to the advice from many editors who are trying to help you. StarM 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Unfortunatley I'm not a native speaker of English. I don't always understand what exactly I have to do. Believe me, I absolutely didn't want to vandalize. I thought I did the right thing Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not worry, you didn't vandalize, but there are a variety of reasons not to re=create pages, which @JohnFromPinckney: laid out above as they relate to this particular process. I have no doubt that you mean well, I do recommend that you take several steps back and learn about the different processes and what they involve. We all had to learn, native speakers or not. StarM 01:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Can you explain better what I shouldn't have done? Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

JOhn explained the process for creating a peer review, which you repeatedly did not follow. I understand you wanted a peer review for your article (no comment on merits), but there is a Wikipedia process which JohnFromPinckney linked you to and instead you just did it your own way again. That's not vandalism, but it is disruptive editing. StarM 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: How did I forget that I had the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France is in peer rewiev and therefore two peer reviews cannot be held by the same nominator? I think I will focus only on the article List of Coppa Italia finals and when the article is named an FL I will focus on the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France. I will therefore withdraw my candidacy on the article just mentioned Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contribution with translating this article from the French wikipedia. Please note that it is a wikipedia license requirement to attribute the foreign language wiki which you translate from. See Help:Translation#License requirements for details. Thanks, Gricehead (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus. I see you are getting many messages about following procedures here on English WP, and I hope you will try to understand them, take them to heart, and slow down so that you can comply.

My current example is your apparent wish to request a 2nd peer review (PR) for List of Coppa Italia finals. There is a process for that, clearly described at WP:PR/Instructions, but you did not follow those steps. Instead, you manually changed the {{Peer review}} template on the list's Talk page (reverted by me), and then manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2. You should know two things about that page:

1. Nobody will ever notice it, because you created it out of the regular process. The people who do peer reviews will never discover its existence.
2. I have nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was an error and does nobody any good.

I hope you can find a mentor to help you in your work here, and that you will pay closer attention to the procedural directions offered on English Wikipedia. I wonder why you don't focus more on Italian Wikipedia, where perhaps there's not so much of a language barrier. In any case, good luck, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And I have just now reverted your continued attempts to circumvent the established PR procedures. Please read the above and adjust your actions accordingly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to cancel the peer review? I want the page to be an FL. If you think he got it wrong then fix the page. I can't fix it now because I'm using my cell pho Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)ne

I don't want to "cancel" any peer review. If you want to request a peer review, then I ask you to do it correctly. That's all. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And again: I have reverted your manual change to the Talk page and tagged your manually created "review" page (which isn't one) for deletion. Did you follow the WP:PR/Instructions? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Because you deleted John's CSD out of process and have repeatedly re-created that page despite guidance, I will block you from that page the next time you re-create it. Please stop and listen to the advice from many editors who are trying to help you. StarM 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Unfortunatley I'm not a native speaker of English. I don't always understand what exactly I have to do. Believe me, I absolutely didn't want to vandalize. I thought I did the right thing Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not worry, you didn't vandalize, but there are a variety of reasons not to re=create pages, which @JohnFromPinckney: laid out above as they relate to this particular process. I have no doubt that you mean well, I do recommend that you take several steps back and learn about the different processes and what they involve. We all had to learn, native speakers or not. StarM 01:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Can you explain better what I shouldn't have done? Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

JOhn explained the process for creating a peer review, which you repeatedly did not follow. I understand you wanted a peer review for your article (no comment on merits), but there is a Wikipedia process which JohnFromPinckney linked you to and instead you just did it your own way again. That's not vandalism, but it is disruptive editing. StarM 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: How did I forget that I had the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France is in peer rewiev and therefore two peer reviews cannot be held by the same nominator? I think I will focus only on the article List of Coppa Italia finals and when the article is named an FL I will focus on the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France. I will therefore withdraw my candidacy on the article just mentioned Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My friend, this is the exact same thing that I and others tried to explain to you, and which got you in such trouble, earlier this month. You have apparently jumped (once again) to a somewhat advanced step to get your List of Coppa Italia finals into Did You Know, but you did it without following the instructions. If you had followed those instructions, you would have seen that List of Coppa Italia finals does not meet the requirements at WP:DYKRULES. It was neither created, nor expanded five-fold, in the last 7 days, and it's not a GA at all anyway. You also listed the article under March 27, which is supposed to be the date it was expanded fivefold, but of course, the article isn't even four times the size it was when you created it last June.

I strongly recommend that you withdraw your nomination, so that you don't needlessly irritate the hard-working editors who tend the DYK project. Otherwise, I can well imagine that somebody will bring you back to AN/I, and you don't want that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, this is precisely why I recommended you sit back and watch before jumping in. You are not familiar enough to submit your own DYKs (for what it's worth, neither am I). Please take the advice from JohnFromPinckney and withdraw. StarM 00:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I just marked the DYK submission as ineligible [1] and came here to let Dr Salvus know, and didn't notice the above comments until now. JohnFromPinckney and StarM are correct, this is not eligible for DYK at this time, and unfortunately will not likely be eligible in the future, since it's a list and can't be promoted to GA status. I recommend slowing down and following the excellent advice that the other editors have been giving you, and asking questions if you need help. Kind regards, DanCherek (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney, Star Mississippi, and DanCherek: I apologize. I think I have not read the instructions correctly. Now I just have to withdraw my candidacy. Dr Salvus 09:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: After this, I intend to withdraw the application. Maybe I'm too distracted but I can't find the procedures to withdraw the application Dr Salvus 10:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, another editor will come along in a few days and formally close the nomination and tag it as such, so no further action is needed on your part. Thanks! Hope to see you at DYK in the future, let me know if you have any questions about it. DanCherek (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

JUst noting this parallel thread on my Talk: User talk:Star Mississippi#My distructive changes While I have warned this user that he's very close to a trip back to ANI, I do think he's trying to edit in good faith. This is a genuine lack of competence, rather than one of malice, and the user may be young. Hope this can have a different outcome. StarM 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I don't want to go back to those terrible days when I was in WP: ANI. I could not even sleep at night and did poorly in school despite my getting very good grades. Furthermore, I had fallen into depression and anguish. To avoid this I have decided not to name any articles in GA, FA, FL and DYK Dr Salvus 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, hi, you might remember I gave you some feedback a while ago. You say that To avoid this I have decided not to name any articles in GA, FA, FL and DYK. Have you decided this now, or are you saying that you decided this before? Because you were strongly advised to make that decision a couple of weeks ago, right, but you still chose to nominate Template:Did you know nominations/List of Coppa Italia finals two days ago?

I'm sorry to hear that the ANI discussion in the past caused you distress. You should always try to prioritise school work where you can and if you are overly obsessing with Wikipedia, you need to ask yourself whether it's worthwhile trying to continue to edit here. You say English is your third language, so I would find it surprising if you were able to write well enough for DYK, GA, FA and FL—I myself can barely do this with English as my native language. You also mentioned recently that you're struggling to think of things you can do on Wikipedia. Isn't that a sign that you might want to step away? If you like the idea of contributing to a wiki, perhaps you could find a Fandom (formerly called "Wikia") wiki on a topic you enjoy that needs help. Or if you like learning, maybe a quiz website like Sporcle might be rewarding.

If you do want to stay on Wikipedia, that's great, but you need to find some easier areas to work in that are more suited to your skills. For instance, we have a lot of poor-quality articles about TV episodes at my neck of the woods, WikiProject Television, and we'd benefit from people finding a TV show they like with already-existing articles for each episode that are undersourced and adding reliable reviews (from newspapers, not blogs) to the "Reception" section.

I assume you're aware of different language versions of Wikipedia, but we also have sister projects like Wiktionary (wiki dictionary), Wikiquote or Wikidata that you might enjoy learning about. But the principles you have hopefully learned from your experiences here—take things slowly, don't repeat the same mistakes if you get constructive feedback, and reach out for help before you're at the last chance saloon—apply everywhere you go. — Bilorv (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I'm afraid I'm not proficient with WP: TV and other Wikimedia projects Dr Salvus 14:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: what I'm saying is that you could become proficient with such projects, whereas you seem to be struggling to become proficient in the areas you are currently working. — Bilorv (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

{u|Dr_Salvus}} if you're not taking Bilorv's (excellent) suggestion because you see GA,FA,DYK as a route to adminship and TV not, I suggest you have a second thought. Writing good content is more important than getting awards for your content. Focus on what you enjoy writing about, not what you think you should. StarM 17:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I decided to abandon the GA, FA and FL awards until the end of 2021 after the opening of the discussion WP: ANI, to which was also added DYK after having failed this nomination. Dr Salvus 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi I have decided that I will not take these awards into consideration, if you see discussions with other users it is to discuss how to improve a page (for example List of Coppa Italia finals or Serie A Footballer of the Year). Despite my young age, I know a lot about football. Could my good football edit one day lead me to be sysop? Unfortunately I don't think I am competent with the projects proposed by Bilorv. Dr Salvus 18:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr_Salvus sure. If you look at my user pace you'll see I write on museums, art, historic sites and some random topics. I think I may have had a DYK (there's probably someone who knows how to check, I don't), but have never had a Good or Featured Article. I would recommend just focusing on writing about what you enjoy, whether that's footy, music or anything else. Don't worry about where that writing might lead. It takes a very long time to become an administrator, and there are relatively few. That is not something to focus on at this stage of your editing career. StarM 18:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(No recorded DYKs, Star Mississippi. This tool is the easiest way to test: this page would list them if you had any, compare something like mine for what the tool looks like when you do have some. Anyway, this supports your point that DYK/GA/FA is not necessary as a route to adminship.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, why do you want to be an administrator? They are like the janitors of this website—admin tasks are about taking out the trash (deleting pages that the community have decided to delete, blocking people who are not here to help etc.) so that all of us can get on with the important jobs of writing an encyclopedia. I think you need to rid yourself of the goal of becoming an administrator, because if that is your only goal then you are likely to fail it and waste a lot of time in the process. Perhaps you could set a new goal involving improvement of the encyclopedia and making a positive impact on our readers. (That goal doesn't have to involve anything that's "featured" or recognised by the community. For instance, when I write new articles I often don't put them through DYK, GA etc. but I have my own criteria for when it's a success: when I'm happy with the writing, enjoyed learning about the topic, think the page would be useful to someone researching the topic etc.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi and Bilorv: I study the behavior of administrators. I look closely at the decisions you administrators make and when you have been successful candidates for sysop. I would have a thousand questions to ask an administrator about administrator action procedures, but I would end up boring you. I often dream of becoming a sysop at night. But for now I'm not obsessed and I'm not in a hurry. Dr Salvus 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, in case you were including me in that. I was quite interested in becoming one when I was younger, but I gained a new perspective over time. I implore you to think again about what I've written above: being an admin is not a bad thing to be, but it's not the be-all and end-all, not the most important thing an editor can be, and not the right path for you within the next couple of years. — Bilorv (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't worry about the messed up ping. It's hard at times and I struggle to keep up with the changes to Wikipedia. I became an admin at a very different time in my life. I certainly couldn't have earned it now. You can see I was very active in 2008-09 but other than 2012, minimally so until last year when my workspace changed and I had more ability to edit. Personally I enjoy updating articles and writing new ones. I don't do many "admin jobs" although I did monitor WP:UAA reports for a while as I was active at a time of day when others weren't and could help keep the make manageable. You can also see the kinds of pages I've created. I think, Dr. Salvus, if you look around the football projects you'll find articles that need work. As you work on them, like you did above helping Spiderone with non-notable articles in a language you could read that (I presume) he can't, you'll become a more accomplished editor. Don't stress about being an admin. It really isn't that exciting. StarM 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I

I probably had a desire to be sysop due to my narcissistic nature. I thought being sysop was a series of privileges, but instead it involves a series of commitments, such as checking the WP: ANI frequently. I would like to know more about this topic so I would like to ask other sysops what life is like as an administrator. Thank you for explaining your version to . Dr Salvus 22:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)me

For sure. It's best described as more responsibility, even though we're all volunteers. I don't have to check UAA/AIV,but if no one does, there's a backlog. You're not missing out on anything by not being an admin. Much as you might shadow people while considering different jobs, you could do that on Wikipedia too. See what they're interested in and why.I love watching Bot Operators' projects even though I don't have the technical skills to implement one. StarM 00:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

::@Star Mississippi: Let's change subject. I am no longer interested in the FL nomination of List of Coppa Italia finals so I will ask you this question out of simple curiosity. Do you think the failure of this FL candidacy of this page is caused by the lack of data about attendance on the oldest finals? Dr Salvus 19:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi isn't the editor who can answer this. It failed because of all the reasons outlined in each of the three featured list nominations. Re-read these comments again to see the reasons why it failed. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv:

I think the article meets all FL criterias (exempt the 6th). Unfortunately I shouldn't have candidate it for the third time, which made this article unsuitable for FL. I have made all the improvements proposed. Now I will not name any GA, FA, FL and DYK until December. Dr Salvus 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv. I am unfamiliar with the workings of featured lists, but in addition to the links Bilorv gave you, Dr_Salvus I recommend the thread above from JohnFromPinckney which had some helpful information as to process and how they work. StarM 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article does not meet all FL criteria, and the generously detailed comments at the nominations tell you why. By wrongly saying that the third nomination opening is what "made this article unsuitable" (it was only one factor), you are showing that you do not listen to editor feedback. You allude to the issue above with "lack of data about attendance", but that you have tried your hardest to find data and not found any does not mean that no data exists, anywhere. You will run into problems wherever you go on Wikipedia if you continue to ignore editors' feedback. — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv I probably won't have read enough or I won't have explained myself well. Not a problem, it means that I will read the indications even more Dr Salvus 21:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv I want to take all my time. I'm not in a hurry. It is not necessary to have created an FL to have a better reputation. Dr Salvus 21:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, I say this in the nicest possible way, but I do see you attempting to pick up all sorts of parts of wikipedia all at once, and my suggestion would be to calm down. Wikipedia is a vast beast with lots of different places people sit and work. As you master one thing, then maybe dip your toe into another. I fear you wish to have advanced rights (admin, rollbacker, pending changes etc.) but we only give these things to people who can and have shown for many months/years that they are trustworthy and know what they are doing. Rather than focussing on things that may be good in a potential RfA, you may be better picking a particular subject and running with that. If you wish to work on content, then find an article on a subject you like, and expand it to include more information and fix it up. When you have done a lot of these, you can look into what the criteria is for GAs or DYKs and see if an article you have made is in a similar nic to others. Or, don't do that, and continue to improve articles, which is what we are all here for.

Or, maybe you'd like to work with counter vandalism. I don't know everything about this, but you don't need advanced rights to do this. You can do this for a while, get to know the processes and then maybe ask for a toolset. I fear you move on too quick and don't read everything which can only hurt you in the long run. I'm here if you need some help, but I feel you would be better off finding your needlehouse. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski What should I read in your opinion? Dr Salvus 12:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

DR Salvus, Lee Vilenski is telling you the same thing Bilorv and I and everyone at the ANI did. There's an english expression, don't bite off more than you can chew which essentially means slow down, don't try to do everything at once. It is good advice and I recommend you heed it. StarM 13:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi and Lee Vilenski: I will listen to the advice. I hope I never forget that. Dr Salvus 13:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid my self-centered character has brought me this desire. Dr Salvus 13:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Dr Salvus,

I am merely another editor on Wikipedia with a certain amount of experience (twelve year's worth, in fact). I have no admin-type privileges at all on WP, I just try to write and/or improve articles. However, I have recently noticed your name cropping up all over the place, and not in a particularly positive way. I will be very frank, and please don't take this the wrong way. You seem to be completely intent on ignoring the well-intentioned advice which many experienced editors have given you. You seem to have several bees in your bonnet and many ants in your pants as well.
Everyone is bending over backwards to ensure that your time here is as positive as can be, but you are making it as difficult as possible for yourself and everyone else. The idea of you becoming an administrator is simply laughable, given the quality of your current activity on WP. You recently asked on the help desk about a 'reputation level'. Quite frankly, your reputation is literally about as bad as it can possibly get. Looking at the level of your behaviour, I would suggest that at some point you are very likely to really piss someone off, and suddenly you will be blocked indefinitely.
I normally don't bother to express my feelings this way, but Wikipedia is not a playground toy: it is a high-quality, world-famous encyclopedia, one of the ten most-accessed websites in the world. It is possible that your personal difficulties are interfering with your ability to edit Wikipedia in an adult and positive way. I have been depressed / bipolar all my life, I have also had acute appendicitis, cancer (Hodgkin's lymphoma), heart attacks, a stent operation, a severe stroke and pericarditis all in the space of around 3½ years. I am very lucky to be alive at all. Editing Wikipedia has been a huge encouragement just to carry on living.
But your general attitude here will likely end in disaster. Please stop making a damn nuisance of yourself and content yourself with small tasks until you have learned how Wikipedia works - it takes many, many years. We all wish you to do well here on WP, but I feel you are about to find out how swiftly editing privileges can be removed unless you considerably modify your behaviour. This is not a threat, merely a well-intentioned request to take a wikibreak and do something else with your life for a while, like sort your head out. Please don't reply. With very best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus has been persistently nominating articles for GA and FL that do not meet the criteria, as well as poor attempts to do a GA review, which has left some GA nominations stranded in limbo. It seems clear to me that they don't have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and that the user is possibly just interested in Wikipedia:Hat collecting (they have also had a rollback request denied). Problematic issues include:

1. Repeatedly re-nominating the same list for FL, and then withdrawing when they get feedabck: 1, 2, 3
2. Creating GA nominations for lists e.g. Talk:List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain/GA1 (and a few more which were reverted immediately). This is despite clear warnings on talkpage here, here, and here
3. Posting support for GA nominations, rather than doing full reviews: here
4. Creating the GA nomination page for their own nomination: here
5. Asking for article to become GA despite failing a review a few months ago: here

Their article space editing is generally acceptable, which is why I am not suggesting a WP:CIR indefinate block. Instead, I would like to propose the following topic ban for Dr Salvus:

1. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Good Article review, and from participating in Good Article nomination discussions
2. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Featured List review, and from participating in Featured List nomination discussions
3. Dr Savlus is topic banned from suggesting that other editors nominate articles for Good Article or Featured List

I hope we can get consensus for this, because it's a generally good faith editor, who is just causing quite a bit of disruption to the GA and FL processes. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I added one more thing. And I think some of the poor GA/FL noms may have been deleted, so if an admin could checked their deleted contribs, that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The CIR issues seem to extend beyond content review processes: adding gender to another editor’s userpage and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I won't repeat again. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without seeing a pattern of consistently poor editing (poor to the point of being disruptive, that is), I think I'll oppose topic bans and support the user joining the mentoring scheme. The FL/GA stuff is no doubt annoying, but doesn't seem to have caused mass disruption; indeed, from another perspective, it could indicate an eagerness to promote quality-an eagerness which may outstrip their current ability, but not something they should be punished for. At least, not yet.
  What I see here is an editor with potential (their stats are better than mine—no blocks and mostly article space edits. Disallowing them the opportunity to translate their article work into good or featured material is in neither their nor the project's favour (again: at the moment). It's true that their recent flurry (well, three) of adding gender to editors user cats was wrong: but again, good faith might persuade us to see it as misguided rather than malicious. (Indeed, so soon after International Women's Day, it may well have been well-intentioned.) They have not done it since: perhaps that shows another important quality—the ability to stop and learn. If they can be persuaded to do the same in other areas—a role a mentor would excel in, I think—then we have gained a productive editor rather than losing one.
  Ultimately, at this early stage, I think we'd be breaking a butterfly upon a wheel to sanction DrSalvus, although my comments should not be taken by him as a licence to continue as they are: quite the opposite. ——Serial 14:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Escalated warning (direct link) for various WP:CIR issues, several of a provocational nature. Therefore, I'm applying a straight-up WP:DE approach to this. El_C 14:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic bans at this time per the clear signals that the user is willing to take on feedback and try to learn from it, e.g. at User:Dr Salvus#Things not to do and Wikipedia:Help desk#WP:VAND and WP:DE (permalink). If the user couldn't be trusted to abide by their word then I would struggle to see how they could be a net positive in any area. So let's give Dr Salvus a chance to learn from their mistakes.
  I would definitely recommend to Dr Salvus: at this time it is not a good idea to be getting involved in GA and FL. Learn more about how to find, identify and reference good sources and how to write professional-quality prose. Put that into practice on articles you have worked on in the past, without nominating them for GA or FL. Making some mistakes is okay, but if you continue to make the same mistakes about GA/FL then you are putting at jeopardy your ability to edit here, which is a lose-lose because we value your football-related contributions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Struck per below. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this editor has a poor understanding of Wikipedia types of content. I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Geometry_Dash_levels that he should probably take a break from lists entirely, but that warning has not been heeded. A related issue is basically User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Mike_Patton_quote_removal_edit I'm going to make mistakes, deal with it which is perhaps not the ideal response. Suggest a pause and perhaps a mentor who can walk this editor through Wikipedia, and not hat collecting which all of this reads as. StarM 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• As with all (alleged) potential CIR issues, it would likely be a reassurance to hear the editor say in their own words what they understand the community concerns about their editing to be, and how they plan to address these concerns. Any half-decent answers to these two questions would suggest that sanctions are not needed. Also: Somewhat question the value of mentoring, but I suppose with a good mentor one likes/trusts it can work well, as a purely voluntary arrangement though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • True, but given the user ongoing behavior while this thread is open (see User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures and courtesy @JohnFromPinckney:) doesn't give me faith he understands where he's lacking in understanding of these processes. StarM 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

    What StarM said. His Awareness dial is stuck at the notch between stubborn/oblivious and his Focus setting is at do-the-next-thing-no-matter what. I have given up trying to explain to him what the actual procedures are at PR (and I've stopped reverting his activities). Perhaps if he notices in two months that nobody's reacted on his manually created Peer Review page, he'll realize that he maybe did something wrong. This user desparately needs somebody to hold his hand and (forcibly) guide him, but I'm not that person, and I hope he finds a willing mentor. Soon. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Next issue with same editor; creating (rather poor) translations of non-enwiki articles, without attribution. Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, created yesterday evening, is a partial translation of fr:Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, but omitting redlinks completely (thus mangling phrases). In itself not a major issue, but it seems that every single thing this editor does is problematic in some way, and the learning curve very, very steep. Their previous article creation from yesterday, Giorgio Marchetti, similarly was an unattributed translation of it:Giorgio Marchetti. The talk page of that article indicates that Dr. Salvus is (or claims to be) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which seems like a very bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fram, I just deleted the latter as G4, although it was also a worse version of the one AfDed last fall. El_C, as you've been in discussion with him, any sense on what/if anything should be done to resolve? StarM 16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, dunno — indef, I guess...? I'm still not sure to what extent their positive contributions offset the problematic ones. Probably action is needed here. Am open to proposals on what it should be. El_C 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I honestly don't see an area where they're editing without issues. Part of me wonders whether it's a language issue, although it doesn't appear to be one. At absolute minimum I'd say a topic ban from featured content areas and that he must use AfC due to problematic creations (attribution, etc.) Thoughts? Courtesy @Bilorv and Serial Number 54129: StarM 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've assumed since the start that it's young age, can email the broad factors that make me think this if you want. I could well be wrong, particularly if it is language (style of writing would usually be a tip-off). As for the translations, is the issue just lack of attribution? Couldn't you then fix the attribution (on the talk page) rather than deleting? Or was there more to it? — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv, I deleted as a G4 separate from the attribution. There was no new sourcing since the AfD concluded and nothing in the article indicated any of the factors of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Marchetti had changed. StarM 19:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on any participation in GA, peer review, GOCE, FA and FL because this edit indicates to me that Dr Salvus has not understood why editors are concerned about their behavior, and is not improving their behavior at a fast enough rate. I was going to support a restriction to AfC for further creations, but I don't see what good that would do if the issues are copyright, poor prose etc.—it takes up editor time whether it's at NPP or AfC. I'm not convinced indef blocking is justified at this stage but Dr Salvus really needs to dial back their contributions and study the feedback they have been given in great detail, from start to finish. Referencing, prose quality, attribution when copying within Wikipedia and following notability guidelines are topics to look at. Dr Salvus: you are rapidly spending all the goodwill we are giving you and if the supply runs out, you will not be able to contribute here any more. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The latest (that I've noticed so far) is that over a period of an hour he created 78 new user talk pages, apparently at random, adding Template:Welcome, before making his next edit, to update the userbox with a higher contributions count (last updated barely 24 hours previous). Welcoming users (named and IPs alike) is friendly and all, but it seems like he might be here to collect hats as much as anything else. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And then this edit: What's your secret to making so many changes in the mainspace? You are my idol — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JohnFromPinckney. I saw one of those when he welcomed a problematic error (in his defense, not sure he realized they were) as well as thanked someone who had no edits for their contributions. I have just warned him for that and CSDed the page you tagged that he removed out of process. Beginning to concur with Bilorv about youth. Honestly at this point I think it's an indefinite ban with a (possible) exception for userspace mentorship so Dr. Salvus can learn how to edit. Otherwise an undetermined hiatus isn't actually going to help him, although it would save us the headaches. At minimum it's a project space ban to solve to the featured content issues, but I don't see any of his edits as particularly productive at this stage. So support if closer needs some more bold as I'm involved from a prior AfD or three. StarM 21:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

and the response to the warning maybe made me issue them a tiniest bit of good faith again... if the edits stop. StarM 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Can you give me a general summary of all the mistakes I've made? This way I can write these mistakes in Things not to do and learn from these errors. Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

While Dr. Salvus has ceased welcoming editors who have not edited, he continues to edit in the featured content area, see Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2 despite guidance from JohnFromPinckney and the concerns SandyGeorgia identified above and(I think) telling me he wouldn't. He also semi retired and I think we are at an impasse until/unless his requests for mentorship are accepted. I have no doubt he's editing in good faith, I'm just not sure he has the skills. StarM 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Except he only semi-semi-retired, because 15 hours later he changed his mind. I came here again because I just saw his latest manual creation of a PR page (sort of) with the edit summary, I hope to don't fail the procedures, which, of course, he did. I had just finished cleaning up his last PR request, by providing linked, step-by-step explanations in my edit summaries. But I am doubting the usefulness of these efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing you problems. Believe me, I was doing the procedures correctly but suddenly my cell phone battery ran out. I understood everything I should have done Dr_Salvus (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: per this and the parallel conversation at John's talk page, you aren't doing it correctly. It's not a question of your cell phone battery but the process to follow. You do not seem prepared to edit in these areas and I still support' a topic ban from any featured content, at a minimum. Perhaps you could work on articles in draft space to improve in that area so that yours aren't as frequently at AfD? StarM 18:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: If I were blocked, would there be a way to learn how to do the procedures well and consequently be unblocked? I am a human and therefore I can learn from my errors. The cause of the wrong procedures is that I still don't understand them. Perhaps it would be better if someone explained the procedures to me in Italian or in French. Dr_Salvus (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I am going to abstain for now on opining whether you should be blocked, but could you at least for now adjust your site settings so you will know what articles are Featured and refrain from involving yourself there? At the top of your screen, click on the preferences button. From there, click on gadgets. From there, scroll down (quite a bit) until you find "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)". Check that box, then scroll down to the bottom of the page to Save. With that, you will always see an article's assessment at the top of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Foxnpichu who has agreed to adopt this user so Fox is aware that the issue is broader than grammar. StarM

Minor involvement with this editor previously; but nothing too dramatic. Re. "language barrier" : None of you thought of pointing this editor towards the Wikipedia in their language? As for young age CIR is indeed an option; but if we can avoid a block that'd be better. And I don't speak Italian; par contre je suis francophone donc je peux aider sur ce point là (quoi que je suggère plutôt d'essayer de mieux comprendre comment nous fonctionnons soit sur Wikipédia italien ou francais avant de tenter de s'aventurer plus loin ici, vu les problèmes soulevés). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did think of that, many times. I even finally mentioned the idea to him. I received no direct response, however. His contributions at IT-wiki are much more modest, though, for whatever reason; he has fewer than 100 edits there. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I decided to focus more on en.wiki instead of it.wiki as I don't like the rules of this that wiki. I don't usually write prose texts and therefore the language barrier is not a problem. Dr_Salvus (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem there is that our work here is not merely generating prose or other content, each person working individually. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Some poor English or weak writing in an article can be remedied, but the communication among us is more difficult. If we don't have an understanding for what our colleagues say (want, need, don't like, etc.) or expect, then we tend to step all over each others' toes.

A bunch of talented and capable cooks working in a kitchen together, bumping into each other, moving each others' pans and plates around in unexpected ways, just leads to chaos and unhappy people all around. That kind of confusion and the minor disasters it causes is what we're trying to avoid here. We aim for smooth interaction. I hope this explains our concerns about how your behaviors seem not to match our processes and customs. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As an example (which I forgot to mention earlier), you wrote I don't like the rules of this wiki, which at first glance makes people want to respond, "well, what are you doing here, then"? But after some thought, it seems possible that you meant that you don't like the rules of that wiki, meaning the Italian Wikipedia. An (apparent) little grammatical slip like this could cause a lot of upset, depending on when you make it, and with whom, and about what. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I understood the cause of many mistakes made by me, for example the wrong procedures for peer review or the wrong evaluations for the GA and FL that caused this discussion. What do you advise me to do? Dr_Salvus (talk)

I would like to know if you have continuously proposed cancellation because I also had the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France in peer review? Dr_Salvus (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no. I proposed once the withdrawal of your request for Peer Review the Overseas teams article here way back on 25 February 2021, because you had subsequently started a second PR, that one for the Coppa Italia list, and it was already getting responses. You should have only one at a time, so I suggested to you that you withdraw that request. You finally did that yesterday, although you did it incorrectly. Please see the linked, step-by-step explanations in my edit summaries as I tried to correct your errors. (There was another leftover template, which I missed, and which GamerPro64 kindly deleted for us.)

I repeatedly reverted your edits regarding further PR requests for List of Coppa Italia finals because you repeatedly did it wrong. Incorrectly. Hai sbagliato. Every time. Ogni volta. You have, nevertheless, manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2, but once again, you did not follow the instructions. I am sorry to say this, but you seem genuinely incapable of following any of the procedural instructions here on English Wikipedia.

I have been trying to clean up after you, although it is hard to keep up, and I have tried to educate you as to your mistakes, but there are so many, and I have become tired of it. It does not seem as though you are learning anything. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing you problems. Thanks for explaining the errors. Believe me, I was doing the procedures correctly but suddenly my cell phone battery ran out. I understood everything I should have done Dr_Salvus (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, since last time you weren't clear, could you give me the list again of the reasons why List of Coppa Italia finals didn't become an FL? Dr Salvus 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to draw a deep breath before I start, because I see you are completely missing the point, and missing it so thoroughly and adamantly, that I wonder if you will make much progress here.

I am not the person who maintains The Big List of reasons some article didn't make FL. Star Mississippi is not that person. There is no such person. As Bilorv quite clearly and patiently explained on your Talk, the reasons any list is promoted or not promoted are aggregated in the FLC nominations. They accumulate from all the reviewers who come to look at a nominated page. You are the person as nominator who should look at the reviewers' notes and decide if or how you want to adapt the article in response.

Now, here's the big thing. Bilorv specifically advised you not to continue to ignore editors' feedback. That was less than an hour ago. And now you have posted here, asking for the FL reasons (which I don't have), totally ignoring Bilorv's feedback. This is not the approach which leads to success.

I strongly, fervently, urgently, adamantly and emphatically (whichever terms translate to Italian most clearly) urge you to confine yourself to reading our articles (presumably about football, or Italy, or Italian football, or sport) and noticing how they are written, looking for and correcting spelling errors, adding or improving references to reliable sources where you can, and, as you go, pay attention to the feedback you get. Your changes may get reverted; find out why. You may get messaged on your Talk page; be civil and interact with the other editors. You may not understand some argument or some process; ask politely what was meant. The important thing, I think, is that you learn to listen, as that's a key part of communication, critical to the collaborative process.

Thanks for behaving in such a calm way in all your contributions I have seen so far. Many others could learn from your example! I hope you will take my comments here in the constructive way I have intended them. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I must agree with John here Dr_Salvus. Where I wanted you to refer to John was his helpful notes on your page at User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures where he explained the process that goes into featured content including the steps that need to be followed. Dr Salvus, if you're not going to worry about featured content until December (in your own words. I suggest we need a longer timeline personally), you do not need to understand now why your article didn't make it, but if you have questions after reading the feedback because something isn't clear, you can ask the person who reviewed it. That was not me, John or Bilorv, although I'm happy to try and answer questions about other areas if I can. If you go anywhere near the featured content, which I would not advise, I think you should just observe and see what content gets promoted and what doesn't and learn from those. As John said, work on content without regard to whether it is promoted. Learn what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and what isn't. You've made some good AfD noms in working with Spiderone on Italian footy. Keep doing that. Featured content is important to wikipedia, but not every editor needs to work on it. You, specifically, do not need to work on it. StarM 01:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: It seems that I ignore the feedback since I am not a native speaker and I understand it the wrong way Dr Salvus 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is what lead to the ANI report. A certain degree of skillset is required to edit the English wikipedia and you may not have that yet. That's OK. I certainly can't say more than I cani non mangiano il cioccolato in Italian (thanks Duolingo), so I couldn't edit there. StarM 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Hi have a lot of competences about footy, especialy in Italy. Does that mean I can't edit English Wikipedia? Dr Salvus 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: you're welcome to edit here. You said that you struggle to follow the information provided due to English being your second language. If that's the case and you continue to persist with attempting areas where you struggle, and if you don't follow the guidance given by many, many editors, you will likely end up back at WP:ANI and blocked. StarM 16:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I understand the moral of the story: Stay away from the GA, FA, FL and DYK until I acquire a better English. Dr Salvus 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have decided to move away from the English Wikipedia. It is not an "April Fool", I will study better the negative and positive feedback I have received, the discussion WP: ANI and something else. Dr Salvus 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. I'm sorry you're feeling discouraged and I hope you do not feel we chased you away with pitchforks and torches. Do come back when you're ready, and just take it slowly for a while. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to .
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: grazie mille. Leggerò tutti questi consigli e poi tornerò ad essere attivo al 100%. Dr Salvus 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I have withdrawn the candidate. But I see that you write that there are proposal that I have not put in place. I have checked well but there are no proposals that I have not taken into consideration. Of course I can be wrong Dr Salvus (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I understand. I want to be clear that you've made a lot of improvements to the list, and that's good to see. There are just some lingering issues that haven't been addressed (such as the missing ISBN for the book and the rows spanning multiple columns). I thought the other reviewers and I had been clear, but maybe I was wrong; if so, I apologize for the lack of clarity. Going forward, just remember that FLs should be the best possible content, not just "pretty good". If people seem nitpicky and take a long time to give their support, that's simply because we want to ensure our standards are maintained. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the lack of data about attendance in the earliest finals one of the causes of the non-nomination of the page in a FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: The key thing is that the information currently there needs to be sourced properly, and we can't verify that since you haven't provided enough information for us to find the book you're citing for many of the figures (this is why the ISBN is so important). Also, I think the attendance is there if you look for it; if a FA Cup final from almost 150 years ago can have a source with its attendance, there's probably sources for many, if not all, of the Coppa Italia finals. Yes, it may take some dedicated searching to find that information, but FLs often require a lot of work; they're not meant to be taken lightly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: The Coppa Italia did not have the FA Cup's importance. This is the why for the question "Why there are not informations about attendance for the earliest finals?" Dr_Salvus (talk) (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Dr_Salvus (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I'll clarify since I wasn't very clear: There are a lot of attendance figures that are not clearly and reliably sourced, and that issue will prevent the list from being promoted, no matter what. The missing attendance data is okay, and I think it could pass FLC while remaining there, but it would be nice if you did some digging and tried to find it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks. However, I would like you to help me find data on spectators in the stadium Dr_Salvus (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not the FL reviewers' responsibility. If you want to get the list to FL status, you have to be willing to put in the work. I'm not trying to be mean; we all simply have our own projects we're working on and can't dedicate time to yours as well.

If you're interested in looking in where to look for archives, I would suggest trying the Wikipedia Library. It has access to databases, especially newspapers, that may have the information you're looking for. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If you see well, the data on spectators are cited, those before 2005 are cited by "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio" and those after 2006 are cited by calcio.com. I don't see why there is no reason not to promote the page in FL. Dr_Salvus (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Could you briefly explain to me why you opposed the FL page nomination? Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Dr Salvus: I explained my reasons on the nomination page. You seemed to understand my reasoning since you withdrew the nomination. What other details do I need to explain? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I'm not a native speaker of English, I don't always understand English if written with complex terms Dr_Salvus (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: Okay, I'll try to better explain why I opposed the nomination. First, you just closed the last nomination, and it was your own decision to do so. When you choose to withdraw a nomination, we assume you want to make more extensive improvements that would take too long to address in a normal FLC discussion, so we expect there to be significant changes when you create the new nomination. Instead, you created a new nomination after making minimal changes, so I don't see why we should consider it again. There are a lot of FL candidates, and unfortunately, we cannot spend time reviewing the same page over and over if you're not making changes between nominations. Second, you created a new peer review, and peer reviews must be completed before featured list nominations are opened. This is a FLC policy to prevent conflicting edits between peer reviewers and FLC reviewers. Third, you did not create the nomination correctly. You cannot simply create a new page; you have to click "initiate the nomination" on the article talk page after you add the template {{subst:FLC}} to that page. You did the first part (adding the template), but not the second part. If you go to the talk page now, you'll notice the redlink indicating that this nomination was not properly initiated. It is important to open the nomination correctly so all of the relevant tools are displayed on the FLC page and so the bot can properly close the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

By following your reasoning, do you mean that the article is suitable for the FL? Dr_Salvus (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I'll quote what I said on the most recent FL nomination page: While I do not necessarily oppose the nomination based on content, I also agree that there are still issues that need to be addressed, as I noted in the previous FLC. Generally, I do not outright oppose nominations that need improvement; I make a list of things that need to be improved, and the nominator works to address those comments. This is what I did (and other reviewers did as well) on the previous nomination; we added our comments for improvement and tried to clarify whenever there was confusion over our comments. However, since you closed that nomination, I'm not going to keep working to provide comments. In short: this list is not ready for featured list status, and because of the cycle of repeated nominations and withdrawals, I'm not going to keep commenting on nominations. I know this must feel bad to hear, but if you complete the peer review, reread comments in past nominations, and continue to make changes, I'd be more than happy to consider a nomination further down the road. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope I haven't bored you with these questions Dr_Salvus (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: No problem – and thank you as well for being understanding. This probably seems a little frustrating, but I'm really happy to see how much the list has improved so far and to see where it will end up. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::Now I am no longer interested in FL's nomination of List of Coppa Italia finals. But do you think that the lack of data on the spectators of the oldest finals was a problem? Dr Salvus 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Did I forget to make some changes? Dr Salvus 22:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: Please read my response below. I think it is for the best that you look for other reviewers. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I had asked ChrisTheDude without receiving an answer. Now I have to give up because it will never be an FL and I don't want to return in the WP:ANI Dr Salvus 22:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: As I said before, I would suggest looking for other reviewers. It's not that I don't support your work; I just think our discussions tend to lead nowhere, and a different reviewer might provide better advice. I would suggest either completing a proper peer review or reaching out to a WikiProject; I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force is a good place to start, since those members should know a lot about the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, but my biggest fear is that I will make a mistake, go back to the WP: ANI and be blocked. I am resigned. Dr Salvus 10:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: You were referred to WP:ANI for your frequent FL/GA nominations without understanding the procedures, as well as editing other users' pages improperly. Your work in mainspace (in other words, writing articles) seems to be generally fine, so if you focus on that, I see no problems. If you're still concerned, consider WP:MENTOR if you haven't done that already; this was suggested to you during the discussion at WP:ANI.

At this point, I'm going to have to insist that you stop asking me to help with this article. I have tried to answer your questions as clearly as I can, and I do not want to keep talking in circles over the same issues. I am not going to respond to any more questions you may have about this issue. If you still have concerned, please reach out to the other groups I have suggested to seek more feedback. Thank you. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I will take into consideration what has been said Dr Salvus 19:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just as a note - you should never close a discussion in which you have !voted at XfD - per WP:NACINV. In this case, I don't think it's worth overturning the close, but any further examples of this are likely to see you taken to ANI pretty quickly by someone. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Gricehead, thanks for the note. Ok, I won't repeat this again Dr Salvus 07:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, you are also definately not uninvolved. Please, please be more careful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Ok, I'll be more careful Dr Salvus 08:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your close. What on earth made you think it was a good idea? If you try anything like that again you will be blocked, OK? GiantSnowman 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman Ok, I'll learn from this error. I have already add this fact in my Thing not to do list. Dr Salvus 09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)