Jump to content

User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (October)

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

Good work with nominations

[edit]

Congratulations on becoming the the new Balloonman for me. You see, in the past it was Balloonman who for YEARS had this almost supernatural knack for sniffing out and nominating good admin candidates. He hasn't really been filling that role for quite a while now, but you seem to have taken it over quite nicely. If you compare the trends today to the trends of years back, the number (but not always the quality) of admin candidates has dropped sharply. I think this is primarily due to the disillusionment established non-admins have toward the task, and the daunting task that it appears to be to a newer user. I'm glad to see though that there are a few dedicated editors out there that have a nose for talent... and actually use it. Keep up the good work. Trusilver 00:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much :) Actually I think what's happened is that two of my nominations coming up consecutively may have given off that impression. I'm miles, even ages away from taking up the mantle of Balloonman. But I'm obliged to you for the lovely message. Thanks so much. Wifione Message 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me, an admin? Possibly...

[edit]

Hi, re your mail of 2 October 2011 13:30 - thanks for that: and as a matter of fact, yes. See User talk:Redrose64#Future admin?; if you put this page, which is presently a redlink, onto your watchlist, it should turn blue when it kicks off tomorrow. I almost always communicate through talk pages (hence the reply here, not on email) because I believe in openness. I have the email thing enabled mainly in case I forget my password. The citation template cleanup was mainly to clear out Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. I suspect that there are tools which generate citation templates, but which are not being updated as the templates change, which is why pages keep popping up in there (there are presently six, but 48 hours ago there were none). In the case of this edit, for example, |accessyear=2011 works, but |accessmonthday=September 22 doesn't - both of these will place the page into Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. While doing this, I cleaned up |year=© 2011 which should have been the year alone, omitting the copyright symbol; I also removed |format=html and |language=English, both of which are superfluous - the documentation states "format: Format, e.g. PDF. HTML implied if not specified." and "language: language of publication (do not specify "English" as this is the default)." --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic news on your RfA. Will wait for it then. And thanks for the heads up on the citation fixing. Best wishes for the RfA. Wifione Message 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you'd care to !vote? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the situation. Don't worry; I'm there. Wifione Message 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2011 / Big Brother UK edit war

[edit]

I would appreciate guidance on the aggressive editing and deleting of material on the two above articles by Leaky Caldron. The latter has not only waged an edit war, but also removed content of the Controversy and criiticism of Big Brother (UK) section which they deemed 'salacious' in their edit summary, but was a description of fact, not intended as salacious. This material was placed in this section as discussed the overt nudity in this show and was not obscene, just a repot of what was on-screen. In general, this editor adopts an aggressive attitude to these articles and frequently places aggressive messages on the talk page. This is creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in the editing of this article and the accusations of being salacious are false, they are what happened on the show. Could you let me know if my concerns are justified and direct me to the correct section to report this behaviour if that is the right thing to do?86.176.153.183 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you need to have reliable secondary sources for any claims that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Even primary sources will not do in that case. In case you do have verifiable and reliable secondary sources, take the discussion to the talk page of the articles concerned and also cite the sources. After that, you will have to follow the consensus that develops on that page. If you feel consensus on that page is going against any Wikipedia policy, that consensus can be overruled once you take the issue up at ANI. But I don't think editors will be that unreasonable as to disregard any policy. So get the valid sources, then discuss. Wifione Message 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today you cautioned this editor about making further personal attacks. He accepted your warning. He has now repeated further allegations of edit warring and aggressive editing, stating that I frequently place aggressive messages on talk pages. This is a falsehood. Feel free to check my recent talk page edits. The IP does not understand wp:agf, wp:npa, consensus, WP:BOLD or for that matter any of the underpinning policies of WP. I am heartily fed up with his repeated, false allegations which amount to personal attacks and, given your earlier warning, I might have expected that you would have at least given him a final, "final" warning about his conduct. Leaky Caldron 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think - and it's my personal opinion - that you may and perhaps should just consider the import within the ip's request (which is to discuss article issues on article talk pages than on the ip's talk page) and disregard the rest of the addendum. It's a good time to give a chance to the ip to improve on editing and communication - and so is the case for the other two editors. It's never too late to engage an editor - whether an ip or a registered user - productively. There's no user that cannot be changed; theoretically and in many cases, practically too. Therefore, when you say you are fed up, I do believe you have right cause to. However, the issues have added up to such a situation where I see all editors ganged up against the ip (perhaps due to the ip's own undoing) and would strongly encourage that despite all the past issues, one still assumes good faith and guides the ip appropriately. I'm there in any case to rein in exigent situations. Wifione Message 01:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC correctly he came directly here claiming edit warring and aggressive editing and claiming fear & intimidation because of a single, policy-based removal of inappropriate content per BLP. Your failure to warn him about NPA will only encourage the IP to make further such attacks when they see their content removed. Leaky Caldron 06:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to look at this editor's behaviour again. The edit summaries and talk page messages he has left this morning, threatening to report me (and more importantly any other editor who happens by) are unacceptable and plainly demonstrate that your warning above has had no effect. [1], [2], [3]. I made a case for this editor here [4]. I wish now I had not bothered. His combative attitude to any per policy removal of his content is directly repugnant to so many policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, as well as most of WP:5P in terms of the content that he seeks to add. His relative newness is no longer a valid excuse. He has completely disregarded your warning. He has asked me to stay off his talk page, nevertheless I have left a message there advising him of this request. Leaky Caldron 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Sorry to bother you, but you are the only active Admin. who has taken interest is this and I would prefer not to go back to ANI - that just attracts fringe board hangers. Although IP86 is making productive edits there are still concerns about his editing style which, unaddressed, will get him into bother if he comes up against an experienced editor. As you know, I am warned off his TP and in any event, he will accept no council from me. This latest edit is worrying. [5]. With the best will in the world it is hard to describe it as vandalism. It was from a new editor and the worst crime was probably to remove the leading issues box - which was, AGF, a simple editing error or lack of judgement. To describe it as vandalism is likely to just scare a new editor away - something our friend constantly accuses other people of. A case of pot meet kettle! I think a word from someone he respects about his abuse of edit summaries, incorrect & regular use of the "V" word and other inappropriate warnings per my complaint above could be helpful. He has already seen off 2 experienced editors because of the various civil disputes he has raised and the article needs more, not less, input. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 10:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are doing work on WP:NPA, a favourite subject of mine. What is your view on the use of the word "liar" to describe a fellow editor? I'm suprised that NPA does not include such as a fairly bright red line. Leaky Caldron 08:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tb

[edit]
Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Gerardw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for help

[edit]

Hi, I created a problem a couple of weeks ago, but my requests for help made to two other admins that have been active at WP:V have not resulted in the problem being fixed, and both admins are now either inactive or partially inactive.  I am now contacting you because you are the admin to most recently have made an edit at WP:V.  I don't think it is a difficult problem, I just need a Discussion page-move reversed and the resulting redirect deleted.  There is a related Project Page, which was the intended part of the move, that should stay.  Here are two diffs to the requests made to the other two admins, here and here.  I have also been keeping User_talk:Tryptofish in the loop.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Jayjg is back and fixed it.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amity

[edit]
Related discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The information mentioned is mostly wrong and was part of a longstanding effort by some people to blackmail Amity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfiveindia (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Hi Cfiveindia. Kindly read our policy on verifiability. The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability - that is, whether reliable sources exist for the particular statement. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you believe is the truth. What matters is whether you can verify your information using reliable sources. I wish to ask here; are you in any manner related or connected with the Amity group of institutions? I'll await your reply. (Click on the "<edit>" button you see above to reply). Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC) A few of the points mentioned which you have reverted as vandalism were duly referenced. Why were those deleted? Yes I am part of Amity. I am sorry, being new to wikipedia am not aware of exactly what to do. Your help would be really appreciated. Amity is one of indias leading non profit education groups. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Cfiveindia (talk •contribs) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Hi there again. Please read here our guidelines on what kind of sources are acceptable at Wikipedia. I believe you based your statement of recognition of the university on a link of University Grants Commission. The link you placed had nothing about recognition, but rather was a public notice against a few universities. Also, you have removed well-referenced statements from the article. That is not allowed. Do also kindly read our COI guidelines that prohibit you from undertaking editing which has a conflict of interest. You may be blocked if you undertake CoI editing. Instead of removing material from the article, find out reliable sources that provide the point of view you portend, and then instead of adding material to the article (as you have a CoI), you should discuss on the talk page of the article and wait for consensus to emerge before adding the material. Please write back for any further assistance, although I shall be replying only tomorrow.(Whenever you leave a reply or write on anyone's talk page, please sign your statements by adding Cfiveindia (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC) at the end of your statement or reply). Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Wifione,I have left an edit request on the discussion page for Ashok Chauhan. Also, I would like to ask you how to proceed with the other information which is mentioned. A transcript of an Appeal Ruling has been uploaded. In the guidelines for biographies of living people it says that "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Can this transcript be used? Also I would like to inform you that all this was part of a major attempt to blackmail Dr Chauhan. A lot of people including the media were used to pressurise and give false information. As proof, is there any copy of a notice or warrant uploaded or shown anywhere? It is very simple for people who have connections and money to get articles printed and things done to give out wrong information. When one is writing such a damaging thing about a living person, should there not be more substance like the actual warrant or notice rather than just what some third person is saying? I appeal to you to understand that how damaging this is to an individual and request your help in rectifying it. Cfiveindia (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Hi there. I can understand the situation. I'll answer your queries sequentially. First, primary sources should not be used alone -and you're right about that. Our policy states that primary sources may be used to augment secondary source material. The Tribune's report is quite a reliable source and consequently, the primary source material is being used only to augment The Tribune's information rather than being used alone to make assertions about any living individual. If there's any statement you feel has been purely used out of the primary source, kindly do tell and I'll immediately remove it. Secondly, the policy on verifiability - which in fact encourages the use of reliable sources that document an arrest warrant being issued than purely using the original copy of the arrest warrant itself (which would be a primary source) - has been one of the pillars of Wikipedia for years now. Yes, you do have a point that one should be extremely careful about not destroying the character of a person by writing unreliably sourced material. But here, as far as I can understand, all statements have been reliably sourced. Please feel completely free to write back to me for any further assistance. Thanks.Wifione Message 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC) We have letters from the German authorities confirming that there are no arrest warrants. How can I show these to you? There, I feel, cannot be anything more substantive than that. Cfiveindia (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC) About the Tehelka article I would like to inform you that it was removed by the publication after they were informed and realised the real motives of the journalist. You may be aware that sadly in India it is not difficult to buy journalists to write anything. Dr Chauhan is a very honest and religious person. He has dedicated his life and all his resources to establish a good non-profit education system in India. All these continuation of this old episode of blackmail and false allegations are very damaging to all the students of Amity. you have to please realise this and really help us in this. Cfiveindia (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I do see your point of view - at the same time perhaps not agreeing with you about the 'purchased-nature' of reliable sources in the Indian sub continent. I understand Mr.Ashok Chauhan is a well known person otherwise too - if I were to go by the Google hits - so I understand many people know about him. I have to request something here - as multiple sources have mentioned details that are currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article, can I request you to provide me with at least some reliable sources that have mentioned the details that you are saying? Even if you provide me one reliable source, it'll be easy for me to immediately add your point of view within the article to make it represent what you are mentioning. While I'm trying to assist you as far as possible, the issue I'm facing is that while reliable sources are mentioning what is written, I do not have in my proximity any reliable source that mentions what you are mentioning. Also, it'll be nice of you to provide reliable sources that mention much more encyclopedic material about Mr.Ashok Chauhan. Adding the same would also provide the reader with more of your point of view. Please do understand, my intent here is to find how to assist you in the best manner possible while not going against our policies and guidelines. Will await your reply. Kind regards.Wifione Message 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Wifione, as mentioned we do have letters by the German authorities confirming all this. We would not like them to be published though as this whole negative issue had died out many years ago and has now just come up again. what do you suggest? We thank you for starting the page on Dr Chauhan and taking so much active interest in him and Amity. Can i please ask you that how did you come to know of Dr Chauhan and Amity and where your active interest arises from? Cfiveindia (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Hi Cfive, I must have come across his name on trawling through the educational institution pages. Now, with respect to your German authorities letter, I really don't know what to do. I don't want to put you through a sensitive situation by asking you to get the letters out through reliable sources if you don't want them printed. At the same time, the BLP policy (biography of living persons' policy) is very clear about validating statements. There's been interesting talk recently on our policy discussion pages about why our verifiability policy should also specify the fact that our objective is also to be true - and not just perhaps blindly follow the verifiability concept. In other words, there might be a time in the near future perhaps when we should be able to place non-validated statements into BLPs. Unfortunately, I'm not sure when this will come through, if at all. You have to appreciate one very critical point that given the amount of material contained within the sources I've listed on the page, there could have been much more written about the German issue. However, I've kept the portion extremely minimal so it does not look as if there are paragraphs after paragraphs of the German issue. You should do something on your own too. Please do list out reliable sources which talk about other positive things about the subject. Whenever I can, I'll add them too onto the article. You could too, after leaving a note on the discussion/talk page of the article for, say, a couple of days for each change you propose to make on your own. Please ensure you don't delete any current statement that has been verified using a reliable source. I also would suggest that we add an npov tag on the article. The tag would give a note at the top of the article that the neutrality of the article is disputed. This will have both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that it would attract many more editors to the article who could bring in their point of view about how to make the article neutral. The disadvantage is that editors may not view the current content as being enough and may try to expand the same - which may result in the German issue getting expanded further. Therefore, I shan't proceed with this unless you are comfortable. Wifione Message 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Lets go by your suggestion of not adding tag. We can upload the letters on the Amity website if that will help? Cfiveindia (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Ok. The tag shan't be added. About adding the letters on Amity website, I'll revert to you in a couple of days as I'll bounce off the idea to the reliable sources noticeboard participants. The reason is because this website is a primary source and the material -about the warrant not currently being there - needs to have a secondary source to augment the primary source. Maybe the reliable sources noticeboard participants will take a lenient view in this case. If they do, well enough, if they don't, we'll look at other options. Don't worry. Wifione Message06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Wifione, Thankyou. I would also like your help on some of the issues mentioned on the Amity University page: 1. AICTE. It is rightly mentioned that AICTE approval is not required by a University. Now the question is that why then say that Amity does not have AICTE approval? It immediately gives a negative impression to a reader. Like this one could potentially list hundreds of approvals that any organisation does not have, just because they are not required to have. I hope I am able to make the logic clear in this. 2. UGC. UGC has never refused to recognise Amity University. There was some issue with including Amity in the list of Universities on the website which was sorted out as the court directed the UGC to do so. Private Universities are new in India and the statuatory bodies sometimes take time to understand the changes and adapt. UGC would have done it in due time but many Amity students were facing problems because of non-listing so Amity went to court to fasten the process. For example the Association of Indian Universities only just some months ago (after 6 years of private Universities coming into being) passed the resolution to list private Universities. But what we have to remember is that being part of the UGC list is not recognition of a University. If you see the letter of UGC at http://www.amity.edu/Admission/images/UGC_Letter_0001.gif , it clearly says that Amity University is empowered to award degrees under the UGC Act and the Degrees are valid. Also if you see the response of the Human Resources Ministry in Parliament at http://www.amity.edu/Admission/univinfo_LS.asp , it clearly says on the question on recognition of private universities that on the information provided by UGC Amity has been established by State legislature. Also the source mentioned does not substantiate anyway that UGC has not recognised Amity University. What is written on wikipedia is causing so much damage to students of Amity. We continously get mails from them that companies they are working in or universities where they are applying to refer to Wikipedia and question the recognition of Amity which goes against them. I would be very obliged for your time on this. Cfiveindia (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Also i would like to add that the Association of International Universities (which is maintained by UNESCO) and the Association of Commonwealth Universities list recognised Universities after taking information from the relevant bodies of a Country. They would have never listed Amity University if it were not recognised. Cfiveindia (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Give me another couple of days on this. Wifione Message 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Wifione, really need your help. This situation is getting quite bad. Hundreds of students and parents are contacting us every day on how much the wikipedia page is damaging them.Cfiveindia (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC) There's some editor who has edited the page. I've left a few notes on the talk page. I'll take till tomorrow to first revert the change and give you my point of view on what can and what cannot be done per policy. I am still to put up the note on the reliable sources noticeboard as I just couldn't find the time. Will do the same tomorrow and ask the editors who frequent the reliable sources noticeboard about this issue. Will give you the feedback by the evening. Sorry for the delay. Wifione Message 16:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Wifione, I can understand you are very busy. Any feedback on the above? Many thanks. Cfiveindia (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC) My apologies for the delay. I'll work on the institutional article first and will respond once I've finished the cleaning up work. You'll hear a response soon from me. Kind regards. Wifione Message 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wifione. Please do take out time to fix this grave injustice being done. Cfiveindia (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been insanely busy. But it's a promise. I shall get on to this first thing tomorrow. Wifione Message 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Comments and thank you

[edit]

[8] Thank you. I'm happy to admit that often my commentary comes across as overly forecful and direct. Regretfully text only mediums are probably not ideal for the way I express myself. I think you hit the nail very firmly on the head there. I'll try (no promises..) to resolve to follow your sage advice, and read my responses more robustly before submitting - to avoid what I see as honest commentary being taken as a "personal attack". Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

[edit]
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very late reply but thanks so much. And congratulations. Wifione Message 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

anugrah

[edit]

SIR ANUGRAH IS THE topper OF HIS AREA AND HE IS ALSO A WELL KNOWN POET OF HIS AREA. NOW HE IS ROLE MODEL FOR YOUTH IN HIS AREA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anugrah1996 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

GOCE drive newsletter

[edit]
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

[edit]

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 01:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2011_(October)&oldid=1089635931"