Jump to content

User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (September)

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

AfD deletion

[edit]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shata shloki Ramayana, you may wish to delete Shata Shloki Ramayana to which Shata shloki Ramayana was moved part way through the AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sig

[edit]

I don't know if this was your intent. (Firefox on a Mac.) Just letting you know.68.188.73.250 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About editing the article on Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad

[edit]

Hi, I notice that you have edited the above mentioned page and removed a lot of content. Was just curious to know why. Do let me know. Thanks! — Precedingunsigned comment added by 14.139.123.52 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I discuss with you?

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 ~~~~ at the end of your statement or reply). Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dear Wifione, I can understand you are very busy. Any feedback on the above? Many thanks. Cfiveindia (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

WP:INEI

[edit]

Hi Wifione, it would be better if you can discuss in WP:INEI and remove the contents in pages related to educational institutes in India. Please help in finding references than just removing the content from the pages. -- naveenpf (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I might not be able to leave a note at INEI every time; but I'll drop in whenever I can. Would you also be able to please leave a few diffs on my talk page so I'm sure about what caught your eye? Thanks for the note. Wifione Message 15:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohammadahmad666

[edit]

Hi, Can you have a look at User:Mohammadahmad666 and his contributions I get the feeling he is not here to enhance the project. Mtking (edits) 06:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, any objections to me blanking the editors soapbox ? Mtking (edits) 06:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your call :) Wifione Message07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added {{user page|logo=yes|noindex=yes}} to the top of the page instead. Mtking (edits) 07:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe1992 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (album)

[edit]

Hi Wikione. This fix didn't work for me; I updated the Help desk issue accordingly. Many thanks, Nikthestoned 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers and dang lawyers

[edit]

Thank you very much for your kind comments to me, I appreciate them. Thank you also for your contribution to WP.Jarhed (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anomie

[edit]

It's transcluded! Thank you again for nominating me. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just as a note. Note feel bad suspecting bad faith in the (hopefully only) oppose. I, myself, am always suspicious when someone who hasn't taken part in an RfA in two years drops in to oppose based on years-old injuries. I think you have legitimate cause for your feelings on the matter. Trusilver 03:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks for your message Trusilver. I'm not suspicious about It Is Me Here. Just worried about the procedure used to assess Anomie. Anyway, I guess that's how an RfA goes. Good to see you here on my talk page. Best always. Wifione Message 08:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
I award you this barnstar in thanks for insisting on nominating me for adminship, and for all your advice in preparing for the process. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you review the diffs?

[edit]

I appreciate your feedback, but please do review the padded diffs. All but four of them come from before the warning. Likewise, I stopped editing the articles and engaged in discussion once Anupam made his position clear. I have no desire or intention of getting into an edit war with anyone over this (or anything else). Given that all of the edits were in fact constructive, and I reverted none of Anupam's reverts your warning seems a bit over stated. For further context, please see:WP:ANI#WP:OWN_on_Militant_atheism_by_User:Anupam. aprock (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll continue the discussion on the ANI board. Thanks. Wifione Message 09:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

Dear User:Wifione, I hope this message finds you doing well. Thanks for your message on my talk page. Yes, I definitely understand the importance of making any contentious edits regarding militant atheism until the RfC closes, which is what I kindly asked of User:Aprock. I do not think that he would have appreciated me or other editors placing new links to the article across Wikipedia while the RfC is still occurring. I also might add the previous accusations against me in regards to WP:OWN were[1] by the reviewing administrator of the RfC. Thanks again for your message on my talk page and for resolving the issue at hand. I hope you have a nice day. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Wifione Message 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

[edit]

Thanks for your email. I have been asked before about becoming an admin, and my response is always the same. I see my function on Wikipedia as primarily a content creator and secondly as a reviewer. I don't really want to extend beyond these roles. With all good wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2011_(September)&oldid=1140962118"