Jump to content

User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (August)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unblock

[edit]

This is to let you know that I have unblocked NW7US (talk · contribs) because he explained in his unblock request that this username is his amateur radio callsign and represents only him, and the website is also his. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR YOUR ADVICE

[edit]

ya,i wanna thank you.but,i want to tell you about bias editor whose name is shahid,who always interfare.and for info read the articles of musicians — Preceding unsigned comment added byRanbirk (talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assume good faith, be civil and don't belittle other editors. The reason I left a note on your talk page was because I was worried that if you continue your aggressive stance (which comes on and off), you may subsequently get blocked. Civility, is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. So go on and debate with other editors, but civilly. If you are eve in doubt about a course of action, drop in. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Heisman

[edit]

I believe that you are responsible for the deletion of Mitchell Heisman's page, i truly think that you should restore the article. His writing, "Suicide Note," is not only a philosophical masterpiece but your decision to block his page only furthers his assertions of our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by98.71.242.53 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Babcock's date of birth and death

[edit]

Please note that the date of Wendy Babcock's birth and death are unconfirmed. The details surrounding her passing have not yet been determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsukhi(talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Board International Help

[edit]

Hi Mabdul - I am failing to get the answers I need regarding the article "BOARD International". I was hoping you could assist being that you were the most helpful and precise before. I am willing to change the necessary components, even start from the beginning if I have to,but an unaware righ tnow what the first steps are. Thanks! Cpratt1 — Preceding unsigned comment added byCpratt1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hey I see you have once or twice warned the following user, and now I really need admin help. It is Ranbirk (talk · contribs) - the guy keeps edit warring on Priyanka Chopra and personally attacking me while also harrassing me on my talk page (some previous diffs:this andthis). His versions are full of POV, unsourced (or poorly sourced) edits, grammar mistakes (faulty structure, use of unnecessary capitals, lack of spaces). The worst of all is his unwillingness to discuss, and his repeated accusations. Now, today this was the last straw when he started using very abusive language in Hindi in his last edit summary against me (I would translate it to you but trust me it's better to avoid it). I've warned him before, I see you've warned him twice, but I can no longer handle his poor edits; the guy is unwilling to accept help and then accuses me of being biased for no fault of my own. He also has a sockpuppet - Wallvelvet (talk · contribs) - through which he awarded himself banstars (and me too, which I refused to accept as I later understood he was trying to prevent me from opposing to his edits). I request your help as I'm quite fed up, and my next step would be clicking "unwatch". Shahid •Talk2me 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arindam Chaudhuri edit

[edit]

Hi there: Thanks for your feedback on Arindam.(comments redacted)</small Best Regards, Pataps 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataps (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pataps, let me guide you to our BLP policy that has to be followed not only while writing articles, but even on talk pages. Slamming the character of living individuals based on blogs, portals, primary sources etc is equivalent to what Wikipedia considers deliberate attacks on living persons and vandalism. Quoting our BLP policy, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages."
This is critically what allows Wikipedia to be quite different from the various zine blogs, dramatica chat forums, vanity tabloids and self published reports that one generally sees on the net. Kindly do not attempt to add such non-NPOV material based on blogs, portals etc; please do understand, you will be blocked the very next time you attempt to add material like this to any BLP anywhere on Wikipedia - on talk pages, on articles, in messages, wherever.
At the same time, if you've made an honest mistake and wish to understand the editing pillars of Wikipedia, I shall be more than pleased to assist you. Feel totally free to write back to me. Thanks and regards. Wifione .......Leave a message 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Hi Brother, the photo]s of the Brethren have not come from any official Church website, thay have all came from Flickr, all of which had be labled under copyright terms as useable and able to be uploaded unto Wikipedia, under the terms and conditions of uploading photos from Flickr. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by90.208.81.194 (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Hello, Wifione! I hope you enjoy this cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on a 2nd RfA?

[edit]

Hi. I'm starting to think about whether I may be ready to go for a second RfA. Myfirst RfA failed last December, but you supported my bid back then "to keep up [my] faith in applying again". Since last time, I've been trying to do more content creation (and I've done four GA's, one of which I think has FA potential). Additionally, I recently started getting involved in AfD discussions. Any comments or suggestions you might be willing to give me would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a pleasure to see you here and to see your intent. Wikipedia would always benefit from administrators like you. At the same time, allow me to ask, how well do you believe have you attempted to resolve all the relevant issues that were pointed out in your previous RfA? In summary, they were basically: lack of activity, lack of aiv reporting, lack of content creation, a few content additions that lacked citations, understanding of block policy (and related policies/guidelines) and some other pile on opposes. Yes, I've studied your contributions (try closing a non-controversial few AfDs too), but would love a reply from you too. Closing statement; yes, you should go in for another RfA. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K-1_Holland_GP_2001_in_Arnhem

[edit]

Regarding your closure, this AfD was for multiple articles. Consensus was for delete all. Can you delete others as per your closure decision. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ysmay AfD closure

[edit]

FYI: [1]. You missed one (and I mentioned it in the AfD). :) LadyofShalott 10:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbs of Croatia timeline

[edit]

Can you please review it once again? By my count, we now have two "delete" !votes (GregorB and me) and one "delete or expand" !vote (Totnesmartin). That leans much more towards delete or redirect, than to keep as no consensus. --Joy [shallot](talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Morning Joy. I realize the confusion. The statement "delete or expand" was made while not striking out the emboldened keep!vote; and the keep !vote stayed for seven days post the relisting. But I do realize there is room for the editor having simply forgotten to strike out the !vote. I'll leave a message on the editor's page and wait for the reply before taking any action. Thanks and hope this does not inconvenience anything. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, been doing RL stuff that distracted me from WP. My vote is to keep. I said delete or expand to try to force a concrete decision. Personally I think the article has potential to say a lot more than it did during the AfD debate, and I wouldn't like to see it lost simply for being a stub. From little acorns grow mighty oaks. Sophie means wisdom (talk) (was Totnesmartin) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger

[edit]

No consensus? Six deletes and three keeps. Of the three Keeps, one is merely a "ITSNOTABLE", one gives a source which is actually primary, and the other is the author ... Black Kite (t) (c) 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Black Kite. I considered !votes from you, Jethrobot, Tarc (to an extent), Warden, Mathewignash, to have explanatory supporting logic. This is not to say that I am trying to put the other !votes down. A statement like "poorly sourced with unreliable information", or one like "sources of dubious quality", "...with poor sourcing", are as good or as bad as "sources found indicate notability". Thence, I have presumed no consensus. I do understand that you may wish to reject this decision of mine; for that, you may apply to DRV. If there's any assistance in DRV that you may wish, please feel totally free to ask me. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes ... Warden's standard modus operandi is to search Google for the subject, and then present anything he finds at the AfD saying "look! a source!". In this case his "source" was a listing of a Slugslinger toy in ... a list of Transformers toys. I really can't be bothered with the dramafest that is DRV, though - strike one for the ARS, I suppose. Black Kite (t)(c) 20:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the information Reyk. I've read the DRV statement by you. I think it's a fair representation of your view. In respect for your review request, I'll abstain from commenting in the DRV unless called to do so. This is not to put forward a view that I support or reject your review statement, this is simply to mention that I shall be perfectly alright to go by consensus of the editors at the DRV. Do please drop back here in case you need any assistance further. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Thanks Wifione. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

[edit]

Hi, just in case you didn't notice, the policy has been protected, and admins aren't meant to edit through protection, as you did here. Would you mind reverting yourself? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Despite the comment above, I was just heading here to say that I think your recent edit is excellent and expresses the intent of WP:RS on blogs much better than the previous language. I wish that SV would just let people object on the basis of reasonableness rather than simply saying nothing can be changed without consensus. I think your edit is a good one and deserves to stand, and would definitely support it if we have to !vote on it in the WT:V page. -- Avanu (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avanu, hi. Thanks for the note. SlimVirgin's involvement on our policy pages has led to vast and massive improvement over the past few years. I appreciate her note and have no issues reverting the change. I'll put it back in once the protection has expired. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your perspective on this. My interactions of late haven't seen the same side of her that it seems you have, and I'm glad to know that there is a lot more to SV that I might have initially thought. Best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2011_(August)&oldid=1076824876"