User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (November)

Prabhat Kumar Mukund

Hi. You deleted the all-caps version of the article, but that was just a redirect since somebody came along after my AfD nomination and moved it to Prabhat Kumar Mukund. That version is still there. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the note. Wifione ^Message 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Good to see you. Hadn't seen you editing in about a month and was starting to wonder if you dropped off the Earth. Trusilver 04:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow :) Thanks so much. No, not dropped off the face of the Earth. However, have had to travel around the world for considerable time and that's kept me away from one of my hobbies; much because of the amount of work up my sleeve, and some because of the lack of secure net access. Thanks for keeping a watch :) Will send you an email soon. Take care and best always to you Trusilver. Wifione ^Message 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request.

Hi Wifione, Could you please provide a closing statement for [1]? I agree the !vote consensus was clear, but the discussion had nearly nothing to do with our actual notability guidelines. I realize I'd be spitting into the wind to send it to DrV, but I might do so and so understanding exactly what the deletion reason was would be helpful. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit, good to see you around. Will leave a closing statement. Best. Wifione ^Message 06:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm pretty sure Mother Jones is a RS that was more than in passing. I didn't really feel there was any meaningful debate that the sources were fine (there are plenty of others out there, if I'd felt anyone had identified real issues with enough sources for it to matter I'd have provided them in the AfD). Should I put together the list of sources for you to look at or would you prefer I head to DrV? Thanks again for the detailed closing statement, it lets me know what the perceived problem is (most all of the !votes were WP:JNN so I wasn't sure how to address the problem). Hobit (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prefer that you take it to DRV if you wish so that others may have a further look at the additional sources. I hope this reply answers your query? If there's any other assistance you may need, please just ask. Wifione ^Message 05:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's perfect. I may instead ask for it to be userfied. We'll see. Thanks again! Hobit (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(redacted)

Merge discussion for Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion will be appreciated as someone who recently contributed to both articles. --Muhandes (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Replied and accepted. Wifione ^Message 06:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amity University

I saw the edits you made on Amity University and I find myself a little confused. The thing is, thelist of private universities lists four "Amity University", the one in Noida and three more, in Guragon, Gwalior and Jaipur. We actually have an article for Amity University Rajasthan and I was planning on creating stubs for the other based on the UGC list. Yet the article says there are only campuses there, not separate universities. What do you think? --Muhandes (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muhandes. I think you're right. The part about campuses was perhaps taken from Amity's primary website. I'll do a double check tomorrow morning if possible. I'm unsure about whether we should create different articles or should we club them all into one article... That's because Amity per se might not be like the different Indian Institutes of Management which are run by different entities. I think, but I may be wrong, that the different universities of Amity are run by one organisation only. So my limited call would be not have separate articles but to have the information included in the same article of Amity University. Wifione ^Message 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same situation occurs with Maharishi Markandeshwar University. The UGC recognizes three universities, a deemed university, Mullana (which confusingly resides in Ambala) and two private universities, Ambala and Solan. I think management wise the situation is quite similar. My weak inclination in both cases is towards creating separate articles just because I'm not sure where to draw the line. Do we create separate ICFAI university articles or not? What about the next series of universities? Rather than discuss the matter each time separately, I'm inclined towards saying that if the UGC recognizes them as separate institutes, they deserve separate articles. We have separate articles for colleges, in many cases even constituent colleges. This is at least as separate as a constituent college, and probably much more so. This is just a weak inclination though, if you feel strongly otherwise I will not argue it. --Muhandes (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you had any further thoughts on whether an article should be opened for the other Amity universities, Maharishi Markandeshwar universities, ICFAI universities etc.? I started discussion on the matter at WT:INEI and I value your opinion. --Muhandes (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazily delayed reply. But going to your link and giving my comments. Wifione ^Message 17:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Amity University

Dear Wifione, there are a lot of points we have discussed and you have promised many times to get back on. We would really request your help. Also, you seem to have a very negative outlook on Amity and are doing in depth research on the net to find any negative issues. Why is that? There are so many more positive things. Why do you not focus on that.?Cfiveindia (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cfiveindia. My apologies for the past times as I really ran out of time and had to dedicate some time to my real life studies and work. With respect to the negative outlook, I'm sorry if it's coming out like that. That's not the intention at all. You had unfortunately deleted almost all the cited material that was there in the article that also referred to the controversies. I reinstated the same as you should not delete validly cited encyclopedic material. At the same time, due to the COI you have accepted earlier, I encourage you to post the positive links on to the talk page of the article and wait for comments for a couple of days before including them inside the article. I'm sure that if the points are validly cited with reliable sources, they'll allow the inclusion to adhere to our NPOV issues. Also, the part about posting something on Amity University's website - I'm just worried that any exceptional claim that is from a primary source will not be correct. I also think we should discuss the issue further on the Amity University talk page rather than here as that would allow other interested parties to involve themselves. But feel free to write directly back to me for any support at any time, irrespective of what I've written here. Wifione ^Message 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Dear User:Wifione, thanks for giving me the opportunity to allow me to admit my mistake in reverting on User:Glider87's talk page and promise not to cross this line intentionally again. I really appreciate your kind advice in this matter. I've left a longer message at the discussion. I hope you have a good morning. With regards, Anupam^Talk 10:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. You have a clean block record; take care of 3RR from now on. Wifione ^Message 10:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your kindness. Take care! With regards, Anupam^Talk 10:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Abbas protection

You've left an administrative note on the Tahir Abbas discussion page. I wasn't entirely sure of the correct interpretation of this note. Since it is possible to obtain court records in England, and in particular the "Statement of case" in civil cases, is this note meant to imply that such a public document would have no bearing, or would have considerable bearing, in resolving the current dispute? Thanks Bikerprof (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as per policy, such records will become primary in nature. Any material based solely on primary sources is not acceptable in any article in Wikipedia. That's basically all I wanted to say. Rest is left to the editors concerned. Does my reply provide appropriate clarification? If not, do please ask again. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 12:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's clear. Hopefully a resolution with consensus isn't far away. Bikerprof (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Eve

Dear User:Wifione, since you reviewed the dispute regarding Christmas Eve, I would appreciate if you could read the discussionhere and offer your comments. I am not sure if User:Glider87 understands WP:V orWP:RS, looking at his minimal edit history. If I am found to incorrect in my reasoningthere by you, I am willing to accept this. I look forward to seeing your comments there. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping a watch. I see no consensus; and I think that there are good discussions going on. So wouldn't wish to interfere in any way whatsoever currently. Whenever the editors reach a consensus, you could write here or place up the request using the template I've suggested on the talk page. Wifione ^Message 04:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Wifione, thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. Hopefully more users will chime in there soon and offer more comments on the different positions taken there. Have a nice night. With regards, Anupam^Talk05:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About IIM Ahmedabad

Hi, I was looking through the IIM Ahmedabad Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Management_Ahmedabad). I notice that you have made a lot of edits on this page, and removed items. We're looking to rework the content on the page. We'd like your guidelines for the same. Do let us know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicNewb(talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Epic. I removed a lot of copyrighted material that was copied blatantly from various websites. I guess that was one of the issues. Other than that, it'll be good if you go through our editing policy and add content that adheres to this policy. Feel free to write back for any assistance. Wifione ^Message 04:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]