Jump to content

User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (June)

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

Continued edit warring on Fingerpoke of Doom

[edit]

Hi, you said to mention it if the IP continued the edit war on this page. It's a slightly different IP now (74.47.96.108), but still clearly the same editor. The page is now locked, but I thought I'd let you know anyway. GaryColemanFan(talk) 13:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Fabian

[edit]

Hi Wifione. I came about this article by coincidence while doing some research for an RfA. I was about to send it to AfD when I found that it had already once been the subject of a discussion which you closed as no consensus. You may be right ad I won't dispute that although I feel that a relisting may have generated more participation. I have reviewed the sources and feel that they do not assert notability. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's not really important, just if I had reviewed the AfD I would probably have relisted it first. No matter, because I thought it should have finally been deleted anyway :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... Sorry again for the delayed response. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

Quantum Care Limited article

[edit]

I have a concern about the Qunatum Care Limited (QCL) article. I routinely write articles on Wikipedia. Most are eventually edited in some manner. Most individuals edit an article to make it better in some way. While I had the QCL article still in my user area someone was making changes to it. The user name was John Joanides. I thought that unusual. Just a few days after I completed and launched the article into Wikipedia a user named John Joannides made drastic changes to the article. I serached for both user names and think the names were used very briefly and then deleted. All the contribution activity for both names was limited to the unfinished and then finished QCL article.

The last changes to the QCL article basically deleted useful info about Quantum Care. I made an entry into the QCL discussion area. I did make one error, which was not devastating. My info about the Care Quality Commission ratings of the Quantum Care homes was not worded properly, making it appear an organization named HousingCare.org was the rating organization.

I bring this to your attention, as what was done to the QCL article actually detracted from it. I know you are busy. I hate to bother you about anything, but I think it is important to protect the information in Wikipedia articles from improper deletion.Bill Pollard (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've seen the article. Now that nobody has replied to your discussions, why don't you just go ahead and reinstate the changes (leaving the mistake you committed and recognized)? Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

Quantum Care revisited

[edit]

I noticed, as well, that no one responded. I will at least put back the references and the info about the ratings. Incidentally, I made enough edits to qualify to vote for the Wikimedia Board of Directors. It means a lot to me to now have a say about the direction the whole organization is taking. I also signed up for the Wikipedia Typo Team and have been trying my hand at fixing typos. Thank you very much for always taking time to answer my questions. I promise to not bother you, unless I run into something that I am unsure how to resolve. I guess experience is the best teacher sometimes. I just visited Kansas and have found subjects for a handful of new articles.Bill Pollard (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma

[edit]

You deleted a page that should not have been deleted. Indian chronicles has made many threats against our religion claiming his Jain sect have all the answers and we are wrong. I have outside contact with him and I am getting Law enforcement involved for his harrasment tactics. I think you guys should atleast research what the doctors you support say about Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma. There is no information on Rishi Burgess in the article nor just cause for deletion. Please reconsider. It will offend thousands of people. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is instructed as a college course also so its easy to verify. It can be verified going back thousands of years. Please do not side with one Jain view and not another. If you feel something should be changed just point it out and it will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added byJainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I have known Wikipedia to be fair. This is not. I blanked two pages on Indian Chronicles by hitting save button while trying to add material. Is there something wrong with my account also? Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma will be added to Britannica soon so I do not understand the reasons behind deletion other than the religious assault by Indian Chronicles. Larry V tried to play this down and does not even have the full story. I guess all users should go try to have religious philisophical topics deleted that they do not agree with. Clearly there is supporting evidence to Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma. I never thought that Wikipedia would go along with a religious debate and sensor me. I hope you can help solve this and a fair manner and take the time to research the facts. I can link religious scripture on palm leaves for you if you like. — Precedingunsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk •contribs) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I could care less. The problem is being solved. Thank you for your response. The deletion process is not based on voting from what I read. I am still very new to Wikipedia. We will contest and see what happens it will not matter much one way or the other. I will not be posting on Indian Chronicles or other articles. I have also had a few issues that were an accident. I got vandalizing messages. Please inform Lary V to not worry I harbor no anger as this problem is being handled just fine. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added byJainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

v/r - TP 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User Kollyfan

[edit]

As you can see this user was blocked indefinitely yesterday and now has been unblocked. I personally feel the reasons given by him aren't satisfactory. He was blocked for 48 hours for Edit-Warring and abusing others after multiple warnings and after his block he came into action, terming other users as "vandalising criminals" on more than a dozen user pages. I have no personal feelings against him but what makes a guarantee that the user will not continue to harass others. Also he doesn't look colloborative with others. Again no personal feelings, I just said, what I felt! Thanks once again. --Commander (Ping Me) 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The blocking admin stated that he/she was open to an unblock; however, I do think that it should have waited for comment fromKollyfan as the discussion on his/her talk page stated. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry, Ryan, thanks for dropping in. I understand. I've reviewed a lot of the incriminating statements; and honestly, they are enough for an editor to be blocked indefinitely. Assuming good faith (based on the statement provided already by Kolly), I have unblocked him/her. The only way now we can check whether the chap is up to his words, is to follow his actions for some time - which I should be doing. Beyond that, in case you feel there is some egregious issue of which I might be unaware, please feel free to drop in; and of course, if future exigencies occur, then too. Kollyfan is hanging on an ultra thin thread, that much is assured. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanations are satisfactory. I'm not against that user or any other for that matter. Thanks again! --Commander (Ping Me) 03:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

+Re

[edit]

Wifione, I have replied Here. Mlpearc powwow 23:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBA dhaka university

[edit]

Hi Wifione, 

I saw you in the ISB page where a controversy related to a Dean/or ISB official has led to a controversy section being put up in the ISB wiki page. I found a similar case with IBA dhaka university but the controversy section has been removed by a student of that university .I needed your advice .Please checkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Institute_of_Business_Administration,_University_of_Dhaka

Let me know or you can contribute there bcoz its pretty much the same case .Although the professor of IBA is charged and proven guilty and taken custody of terrorism charges which created a huge ruckus in Bangladesh. Dualumni (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Admin stats

[edit]

I see you have the adminstats on your user page - do you know about Template:Adminbars? It's not updated by bot, but all the lines between the first and the last are the same as those in the adminstats template, but it gives bar graphs as well as figures. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account ofPhantomsteve] 09:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: fyi

[edit]

Hi there, I've gotten your message but I don't think you should've blocked him. We ended up having a 15-minute discussion about the request, zoom here. It was deemed that if the UPOL concerning wikipedia in the username was taken from a literal standpoint, of course it would/should be blocked. However, we took it from the standpoint that he was only stating something like JohnDoeOnWikipedia . Which when interpreted could mean that it's your buddy John Doe who apparently edits Wikipedia. That's why I had created the account. --Addihockey10 e-mail 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to put in my two cents that I actually agree with Wifione's decision. I, on IRC, was saying not to create the account, as UPOL explicitly states that usernames should not contain "Wikipedia" or any variants. Just because it was created at ACC doesn't mean that it cannot be blocked. Logan TalkContributions 06:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the two things to do were either AGF and create, or deny and keep an eye that this guy gets through the process. If he got blocked somewhere in that process, that's a case of WP:BITE for one. (yes I know the template looks newbie-friendly but the message that you are blocked when you try to edit a page isn't). This guy has been WP:BITEN and I'm not sure if he's coming back guys. In the case that he does - great :-) ; but in the case that he doesn't, it's a shame that we lost a potential contributor.--Addihockey10e-mail 13:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the username would be a violation if we apply the username policy literally, I think that it would have been better if we had treated it like Addihockey10 suggests—that SenthilinWikipedia is a user called Senthil who edits Wikipedia. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore if we were to take this policy literally as you have, why didn't anybody notice these usernames with Wikipedia in it? Wikipedia Usernames - some have extensive contribs; why weren't they blocked? Do they seem to have any problems? --Addihockey10e-mail 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this block. This is not a blatant violation of the username policy. And as Mlpearc and ADH10 point out, it's not the first of it's kind. For those just looking into this, the user in question is User talk:Senthilinwikipedia. --DQ (t) (e) 15:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the username policy: "Usernames should also not include the phrase "wikipedia", "wikimedia", "wiktionary", etc, which could imply the account was officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects." → It depends on the context in which that username is being used. For example, I just blocked the account Mediawiki Administrator (talk · contribs), which is a clear violation of the username policy because it suggests that it is coming from the MediaWiki software and is misleading. The account in question, however, does not suggest that it is going to mislead people into thinking that the account is from the WMF, MediaWiki, etc. Long story short, I'm afraid I also have to disagree with the block. –MuZemike 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify the statement at WP:UPOL then? It seems to imply that no usernames may contain Wikipedia or other MediaWiki/WMF terms. Logan Talk Contributions 19:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Logan - as I interpreted it, it makes more sense to restrict it only to usernames that imply a non-existant position of authority on Wikipedia like MuZemike's example.

@Wifione - Thank you :-) I appreciate it. --Addihockey10e-mail 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologizes for the late post but I agree with ADH10, in that the guide should stay the same with regards to restricting the use of "Wiki", "Wikipedia" and such within usernames MuZemike is correct it depends on the context for which it's used, and probably flagged users and tool admin's can make that determination. Tool users can seek guidance with such request. Mlpearc powwow 12:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Conflict of interest suspected

[edit]

I've been editing Wikipedia under my real name since 2004, and I've no conflict of interest here (other than that, like other Wikipedia editors, I disagree with Arindam Chaudhary's views on the project). If you look at my contribution history (en/hi), you'd probably realize that I'm not a single-purpose account unlike some of the other users editing the IIPM-related pages.

Unlike you, I've made very few edits to the IIPM-related articles during my 7 years of Wikipedia editing. I edited the article Arindam Chaudhuri for the first time early this year, and Suraj845 accused me of having a conflict-of-interest as I was an MBA student at that time. The argument wasn't exactly valid since I am not associated with IIPM or its supposed 'rival' institutes (the IIMs). But, I've stayed away from the IIPM-related articles ever since as a token of good faith.

The content which you undid with the edit summary "removed conflict of interest editing by Utkarsh" wasn't originally added by me. It was added by another user (Siddharthmukund, an editor since 2005), with references. User:Suraj845 removed it with the edit summary "Undoing unconstructive edits". I simply restored a trimmed version of the previous content, since IBNLive is a pretty solid source, and given the amount of discussion the topic has generated in India, this is worth a mention in the article.

If I had to make polemic edits to the articles, I could have made plenty of them, backed up with good sources (likethis orthis). Instead, all I've done is posted two talk page comments and reverted a whitewashing attempt. That's not sufficient enough to warrant a conflict-of-interest accusation. I encourage you to assume good faith. utcursch | talk 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursh, I have to mention, I think you've presented an extremely good case here. I'll cut my comments in good faith. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Good luck with your planned major edit. utcursch | talk 16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2011_(June)&oldid=1140962126"