User talk:Salvio giuliano

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Undeletion Request: User:Marchitects/sandbox

[edit]

Hi Salvio -

This page was tagged under G11 and deleted on July 25. I am the original contributor, editing under the Marchitects account. It was a private sandbox draft for a credibility documentation project, not a live article or promotional piece. I am revising the tone and structure to meet neutral point of view guidelines.

I respectfully request restoration to my user sandbox so I can continue preparing it for formal submission. Marchitects (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC) Marchitects[reply]

Marchitects, that's not an appropriate use of your sandbox, as Wikipedia is not a webhost. I have just re-read the article and, quite frankly, its tone was so overly promotional, the the article would have had to be rewritten from scratch to salvage it.
One excerpt is enough to show what I mean: Ricardo Scales represents the intersection of musical excellence, community leadership, and cultural preservation. His journey from a five-year-old prodigy learning on a miniature piano to the guardian of San Francisco's jazz heritage illustrates the power of artistic dedication coupled with social responsibility. His recovery from career-ending injury and subsequent rise to become the city's unofficial pianist laureate speaks to the transformative power of determination and self-belief.
And the entire article was written like that, paragraph after paragraph of promotion, so I am not going to restore it, because I don't see the point. Even if I restored it, you'd have to start over, because its issues were far too extensive. However, if you want to contest my decision, you can try at deletion review.
Also, let me ask: do you have a conflict of interest? Are you being paid to edit Wikipedia? In both cases, you need to disclose it. —  Salvio giuliano 17:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio --
The deleted draft was in my user sandbox. That's a designated private workspace. It wasn't in mainspace, hadn't been submitted, and wasn't promoted.
The site itself tells new contributors to use their sandbox for first drafts. That's exactly what I did. The article wasn't live and hadn't been submitted. It was housed where Wikipedia says to build first contributions.
Your action and reasoning go against that guidance. If sandbox space is now getting deleted without notice or chance to revise, then it can't serve the drafting purpose it was made for.
I won't put this draft back in the sandbox. I'll finish my work in external editors and bring a final version straight into the review process. Protecting the work's integrity and preventing this kind of unwarranted interference.
I'm not getting paid and there is no conflict. I'm documenting figures with verifiable public record and cultural contribution.
I'm stating this for the record to maintain procedural clarity.
-Marchitects Marchitects (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marchitects, it seems I may have misunderstood what you meant by draft for a credibility documentation project, but that doesn't really change the gist of my reply. It's true that guidance for new editors is to start a new article in your sandbox, but on Wikipedia your sandbox is not really yours. By that, I mean that other editors may make edits to pages in your userspace, though it's usually avoided, unless there are obvious problems with the content of your userspace.
The relevant policy is WP:UP and, in this case, I found that your draft violated WP:UP#PROMO. I am sorry you feel put out by your first interaction with Wikipedia, and I do encourage you to create a new article which fully complies with our content policies, assuming Mr Scales is notable, but your original draft was far too promotional to be kept around. —  Salvio giuliano 18:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marchitects needs to be spamublocked as a company-name AI-promospammer. See the user's talk page. Your G11 was fabulous, and the only thing missing is you never having talked to this account because you had blocked it after a short investigation, which would have also prevented disruption of Wikipedia through wasting your time and that of editors at DRV (where the filing was obviously AI-generated and therefore inadmissible). "Marchitects" should have rung a bell. What kind of architects? Marketing automation architects... Thank you for your efforts. —Alalch E. 14:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E., thanks. You're quite right, had I blocked the user when I first came across their sandbox, this entire waste of time might have been avoided. I am still convinced that the article qualified for speedy deletion under G11 and that nothing is served by keeping such evidently promotional pages on Wikipedia. However, not everyone in the community agrees and I accept that reasonable people may disagree.
I have also read your message on their talk page and was tempted to block; in the end, I decided against it, because I fear it might appear retaliatory. However, let me thank you for your investigation. I am sure any other admin will block in a heartbeat, because the evidence you have shown is foolproof.
When I originally came across the editor, I suspected possible violations of WP:U and WP:PAID, but didn't consider them clear enough to warrant an immediate block – back then, I missed that the editor had revealed her real name. In general, though, I have to say I don't particularly like to get involved in WP:PAID investigations, because it always makes me nervous to go looking for off-wiki clues about an editor's identity and affiliation... —  Salvio giuliano 14:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and considering the new information. I understand what you mean about the uncomfortable feeling. —Alalch E. 15:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible. You know I wonder if the page would have caused so much disruption had the subject legacy not been African American. This has been INCREDIBLY enlightening. I cannot wait to unpack in other mediums. I look forward to putting award-winning scribing skills on display. You all are bulldogs. Nowhere in the guidelines does it indicate that a pen name is a violation. You know what a HUMAN would do? Simply state it. For an obvious new user. Tact is underrated. Marchitects (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fox for you!

[edit]

Thank you for the prompt granting of my temporary account IP view rights!

LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 13:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Thank you! Llammakey (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Llammakey, my pleasure. Happy editing. —  Salvio giuliano 17:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]